The Campus of the Future: Hybrid and Lean — from edcetera.rafter.com by Kirsten Winkler

Excerpt:

When people imagine the campus of the future, two main ideas seem to come up. On the one hand, the campus experience will be blended or hybrid, meaning that even with the majority of learning taking place online, there will still be demand for activities in a classic brick-and-mortar setting. On the other hand, the campus of the future will be more like a technology startup, focused on cutting expenses and running a lean operation.

Three recent articles in Education DIVE, The Times Higher Education, Slate and Inc. underline this trend.

 

The above article links to:

Internet mentors could supplant traditional lecturers — from timeshighereducation.co.uk by Jack Grove
Horizon Scanning study points to a ‘new kind of pedagogy’ in higher education by 2020

Excerpt:

Traditional lecturers may soon be replaced by networks of online mentors working for several universities, a new study predicts.

In the report, titled Horizon Scanning: What will higher education look like in 2020?, the Observatory on Borderless Education suggests that academic staff are likely to be employed part-time by several universities – often working remotely via the internet – rather than relying on a single employer.

With one undergraduate module, Forms of Identity, already taught via video conferencing to students at both institutions, the alliance “may be pointing the way to a new kind of pedagogy”, the report says.

“Undergraduate lectures, for example, may be delivered simultaneously to any number of participating institutions, either across a whole sector or indeed across borders,” it states.

 

From DSC:
With adjunct faculty members playing a significant role at many institutions of higher education, I could see a scenario like this occurring.  In fact, even years ago I knew an adjunct faculty member who sat behind her PC all day, servicing students at multiple universities.  I’m sure that this is not a rare occurrence.  Plus, we are already above 30% of the workforce working in a freelance mode, with estimations of this going to 40% or more by 2020.

Learning hubs: (how I define it)
Places of blended/hybrid learning whereby some of the content is “piped in” or made available via the Internet and whereby some of the content is discussed/worked on in a face-to-face manner.

Blended learning -- the best of both worlds

Questions:

  • What if learning hubs spring up in many types of facilities, such as in schools, libraries, buildings on campuses, corporate spaces, parks, cafes, other places?  How might such a trend affect the possible scenario that there will be online mentors working for several universities?
  • Will these mentors make enough to cover insurance costs, retirement costs, etc.?
  • Will this be a potential model for lifelong learning? For learning-on-demand?
  • How might MOOCs — and what they morph into — affect this type of scenario?
  • How might this scenario affect how we teach student teachers? (Will it involve more efforts/endeavors like this one?)
  • Could this type of scenario also happen in the corporate world?

Last comment:

  • I’m not saying that this sort of setup is better than a seminar-like experience that has a dozen or so students setting down with a highly-trained professor in a strictly face-to-face setting.  However, that model is increasingly unobtainable/unaffordable for many people.

 

 

 

 

From DSC:
Consider Noisetrade.com (a resource graciously relayed to me by Mr. Michael Haan at Calvin College)

 

NoiseTrade-12-16-13

 

Using this site/service, people can download music for free and donate to the artists if they want to (and I think they should).  The WIN for the artist is more visibility and the ability to create/expand a fan base.

This site/service is another example of people representing themselves…of selling what they have to offer…of people representing their own brands.

Add to this the continuing trend towards more freelancing, and I can’t help but wonder…

  • How should these sorts of things impact what we teach?
  • How can we model this for our students? (i.e. reinventing oneself, selling oneself, communicating with others, staying relevant, and more)

 

 

Also see:

Excerpt:

As work becomes more flexible and communication more mobile, the office is turning into an increasingly complex and even abstract concept. As we look to the future, we have to ask: Will the workplace be on-site at our employer’s property, or on-demand at a collaborative space? Or will work simply be a mindset independent of place or time of day?

The answer is all three, and more.

 

From DSC:
Can we THINK BIG?

 

ThinkBiggerYet-DanielChristian-August282013

 

 

Also see:

  • Moonshot Thinking
    Moonshots live in the gray area between audacious technology and pure science fiction. Instead of a mere 10% gain, a moonshot aims for a 10x improvement over what currently exists. The combination of a huge problem, a radical solution to that problem, and the breakthrough technology that just might make that solution possible, is the essence of a moonshot.
    .
  • SolveForX.com

 

SolveForX-Dec2013

 

 

 

From DSC:
First, some items:


Thinking for the future — from nytimes.com by David Brooks

Excerpt:

We’re living in an era of mechanized intelligence, an age in which you’re probably going to find yourself in a workplace with diagnostic systems, different algorithms and computer-driven data analysis. If you want to thrive in this era, you probably want to be good at working with intelligent machines. As Tyler Cowen puts it in his relentlessly provocative recent book, “Average Is Over,” “If you and your skills are a complement to the computer, your wage and labor market prospects are likely to be cheery. If your skills do not complement the computer, you may want to address that mismatch.”

So our challenge for the day is to think of exactly which mental abilities complement mechanized intelligence. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few mental types that will probably thrive in the years ahead.

 


EmploymentAvatars-12-12-13

Excerpt:

Create your own employment avatar robot to replace you at work. Fight fire with fire. Could this be the solution to the coming robotic automation revolution?

The question on everyone’s mind is “If all the jobs are automated, who will have money to buy the products from these corporations?”  This is not just a blue-collar issue. Predictive analytics in soft A.I. robots could replace creative jobs as well.

 


 

IBM-AnEcosystemOfInnovation-Watson-2013

 


Siri says ‘dump him’? How mobile devices could run (or ruin) your life — from CNN.com by futurist Gerd Leonhard

Excerpt:

(CNN) — The Web is set to change our lives dramatically over the next decade. This will also raise questions about the use of personal data and the need to balance new powers with ethics.  Here are five ways you can expect the explosion in technology to impact you:


 

From DSC:
These items caused me to reflect…they made me wonder…

  • How should we educate our youth in this age of automation?
  • How should our curricula respond/change/adapt to these trends?
  • Or should we even be talking about curricula? Perhaps we should rather be curating and providing streams of content — and doing so on a lifelong basis…?
  • How should we reinvent ourselves and keep ourselves marketable?

 

 

Addendum:

 

 

Is it too late to reinvent our universities? — from forbes.com by Mike Maddock

Excerpt (most emphasis from DSC):

A new survey by Moody’s Investor Service reports that more than 40% of U.S. colleges and universities face stagnant or falling tuition revenue and enrollment.

That’s four in 10!

It isn’t a misprint. For you data heads, let me quote from the news release that accompanied the research report.

Moody’s key findings include net tuition revenue declines at a projected 28% of public and 19% of private universities, with net tuition revenue growth below inflation projected for 44% of public and 42% of private universities and total enrollment declines at nearly half of public and private universities. In our prior survey, 15% of public and 18% of private universities projected net tuition revenue declines.”

 

From DSC:
Back in February of 2009, I publicly asked whether there was a bubble in higher education (see 2/16/09 entry) — being pretty sure there was one developing even before 2009.

 

HigherEd-NextBubble-DanielChristian-Feb2009

 

A year or two later, there wasn’t any doubt in my mind that there was a bubble in higher ed.  Then for me, the question became…”Has it popped yet?” 

Fast forward to 2013 and it seems I have my answer.  It’s a definite one; there’s no mistaking it.  The bubble has popped.

For those of us working within higher education, time is no longer on our side. We have been too slow to adapt and not innovative enough with our experiments. If we keep this up, I can’t help but think that the answer to Maddock’s question is a “Yes.” 

But we can change. We need to be willing to experiment, innovate, fail, pivot, try things again.  It would be good to model this for our students — as most likely, many of them are going to be doing this sort of thing throughout their lifetimes.

 


Along these lines…this addendum concerns me:


 

Learning and Performance Support Systems — from Stephen Downes

Excerpt:

This post is to introduce you to our Learning and Performance Support Systems program, a new $19 million 5-year initiative at the National Research Council that I will be leading.

If I had to depict LPSS in a nutshell, I would describe it as a combination of the MOOC project we’ve been working on over the last few year, as well as our work in Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). The objective is to build a system where individuals can access, and get credit for, learning from any education provider at all, whether from home, the workplace, or at a school.

What follows is a version of the case we presented to NRC senior executive in order to have this program approved. They supported our proposal, and for the last few weeks I have been engaged in developing the program implementation with a large team of NRC colleagues.

Learning and Performance Support Systems
The LPSS program will deliver software algorithms and prototypes that enable Canada’s training and development sector to offer learning solutions to industry partners that will address their immediate and long term skills challenges.

 

 

 

 

I originally saw this via Tony Bates at:

 

From DSC:
Congratulations Stephen! May these efforts help many people reinvent themselves and stay marketable — while helping them pursue their gifts, passions, abilities.

 

 

Also see:

 

 

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. 
 

Rebels on the edges — from Harold Jarche

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

Today we are a witnessing a similar shift, as human information processing is being drastically surpassed by integrated technology systems. This has been called the second economy. I frequently discuss the implications of work automation on what is becoming a post-job economy. Consider that about 35% of existing jobs have a 85% or greater chance of being automated. The challenge we face is how to distribute wealth when capital accrues to the few and there is no need to hire as much labour to run that capital.

…we need to seriously reconsider how value, wealth, and economic independence can be achieved. The key is creativity. “Identifying the new” will be a critical skill. The creative economy will be led by people testing the limits of all fields of endeavour. This will be fueled by big (and distributed) data, in conjunction with networked people. Innovation will be so essential that it may no longer be discussed. Innovation and creativity will be the new literacies.

This is scary because most of our schools and other institutions do not foster innovation and creativity. I think many people will be left on the sidelines of the creative economy until we develop support systems that can help people tap their innate abilities that were ignored for much of the past century.

 

From DSC:
Thanks Harold for this valuable posting; a couple of thoughts came to my mind as a result of reading it.

I would feel much more settled about things like standardized testing and the Common Core if people could explain to me how such things foster the incredibly important characteristics such as creativity, innovation, teamwork, collaboration (some of the key items amongst the set of soft skills that companies are asking for).   I just don’t see it.  Also, the “A” part of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, & Math) is hard to measure on a standardized test.

We need to provide more choice, more control to students; to provide more chances for them to explore, investigate, and identify their interests and what they might be gifted in.  We need to provide more opportunities for students to tap into such gifts, abilities, and passions.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

“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

.

 

 

Innovation imperative: Change everything  — from nytimes.com by Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn; with a special thanks to Mr. Joel Adams at Calvin College for the resource here

Online education as an agent of transformation

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

Like steam, online education is a disruptive innovation — one that introduces more convenient and affordable products or services that over time transform sectors. Yet many bricks-and-mortar colleges are making the same mistake as the once-dominant tall ships: they offer online courses but are not changing the existing model. They are not saving students time and money, the essential steps to disruption. And though their approach makes sense in the short term, it leaves them vulnerable as students gravitate toward less expensive colleges.

Still, the theory predicts that, be it steam or online education, existing consumers will ultimately adopt the disruption, and a host of struggling colleges and universities — the bottom 25 percent of every tier, we predict — will disappear or merge in the next 10 to 15 years.  Already traditional universities are showing the strains of a broken business model, reflecting demand and pricing pressures previously unheard-of in higher education.

 

 

To serve them, it will enlist operators to create mini-campuses around the globe where clusters of its students will live and socialize together in residence halls, as well as take online courses and work together on projects.

 

 

 

U.S. teams up with operator of 0nline courses to plan a global network — from nytimes.com by Tamar Lewin

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

Coursera, a California-based venture that has enrolled five million students in its free online courses, announced on Thursday a partnership with the United States government to create “learning hubs” around the world where students can go to get Internet access to free courses supplemented by weekly in-person class discussions with local teachers or facilitators.

The learning hubs represent a new stage in the evolution of “massive open online courses,” or MOOCs, and address two issues: the lack of reliable Internet access in some countries, and the growing conviction that students do better if they can discuss course materials, and meet at least occasionally with a teacher or facilitator.

“Our mission is education for everyone, and we’ve seen that when we can bring a community of learners together with a facilitator or teacher who can engage the students, it enhances the learning experience and increases the completion rate,” said Lila Ibrahim, the president of Coursera. “It will vary with the location and the organization we’re working with, but we want to bring in some teacher or facilitator who can be the glue for the class.”

 

From DSC:
Some thoughts here:

1)  When institutions of higher education cling to the status quo and disregard the disturbing trajectories at play*…when we don’t respond, people — and governments it seems — will find other options/alternatives.

* Such as middle class incomes that continue to decline
while the price of higher education continues to escalate

2)  I wonder if this type of setup might predominate in some countries.
i.e. blended learning types of setups in learning centers around the world where people can come in at any time to learn with a relevant Community of Practice, aided by faculty, teachers, trainers, coaches, etc.   Some of the content is “beamed in” and shared electronically, while some of the learning involves face-to-face discussions/work. Will schools become more community centers where we will pool resources and offer them to people 24×7?

Also see:

  • The New Innovator’s Dilemma — from huffingtonpost.com by Michael Moe and Ben Wallerstein; with thanks to Lisa Duty for the Tweet on this
    Excerpt (emphasis DSC):
    Increasingly, we’re worried that a generation of entrepreneurs is facing a “new innovators dilemma” — where innovation is stymied by regulatory and political environments focused on outdated needs and the wrong set of “customers.” The truth is, Silicon Valley investors and techies will get by just fine without addressing our big, societal problems. But if we encourage our nation’s top entrepreneurs to join search engines and social networks, we will miss the opportunity to apply their genius to solving society’s most pressing problems.

    This isn’t about the classic political divide of right versus left. This is about policies and regulations written in a different era that are not easily translated to modern technology. It’s no secret that the challenge stems, in part, from the motivations of regulators and the politics of protecting the status quo.

    Change is difficult. And no one is arguing that the transportation, hospitality, and higher education industries don’t need to be regulated. New approaches, in particular, warrant close scrutiny. But if we are ever going to experience the sort of revolutionary change that technology might afford to virtually every sector of the American economy, we need to be willing to rethink the traditional ways of regulation to make innovation easier and more responsive to the consumers and students these regulations were originally enacted to protect.

 

Addendum 11/1/13:

 

Excerpt from A Direction for Online Courses from LinkedIn.com by Jose Ferreira, Founder at Knewton (emphasis DSC)

The Non-MOOC Landscape
The improvements — such as high quality textbooks, materials, and supporting services —needed to turn MOOCs from lectures into fully developed courses cost money. In response, some MOOC facilitators are beginning to offer non-MOOCs, sometimes called SPOCs — “small, private online courses.” Udacity partnered with Georgia Tech to offer a Masters in Computer Science priced around $7,000.

The program is neither “massive” nor “open.” It is, however, the future. Within a decade, virtually every large university in the United States, and many elsewhere as well, will offer online courses — for credit and for fee. These courses will be particularly useful to students who don’t already have access to comparable courses.

The for-profit universities have just a few years — until there is widespread market awareness that these not-for-profit degree programs exist — to improve and in some cases reinvent their operations.

It will be these high-production value, for-credit online courses that will play the central role in the ongoing educational revolution. It will be the institutions themselves who are the great disruptors.

 
© 2024 | Daniel Christian