The connected TVs are here… interactive programming & native apps will follow— from venturebeat.com by Habib Kairouz

 

The connected TVs are here… interactive programming & native apps will follow
.

Excerpt:

Innovative devices have always fueled new application ecosystems. The software industry was enabled by the WinTel PC platform; and hundreds of thousands of websites were built once the PCs became “connected.” In the last few years, we have witnessed the same trend in mobile; more than 700,000 apps have been created for Web-enabled phones. We’ll soon see connected TVs fueling a similar ecosystem of interactive programming and native apps. With nearly a quarter of all U.S. households currently using connected TVs (according to eMarketer), we have reached the tipping point of mass adoption.

As opposed to the disastrous impact the Internet had on the print industry, I see the innovation of the connected TV market as a tremendous, yet accretive, evolution as opposed to a threat. Here’s why:

The Aussie Coursera? A new homegrown MOOC platform arrives — from theconversation.com

Excerpt:

A new free online education platform has been launched in Canberra today, by tertiary education minister Chris Bowen.

Open Universities Australia, a private distance and online education organisation, has stepped into the world of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) with a new online platform called Open2Study.

Tagged with:  

MOOCluhan: Using McLuhan to understand MOOCs — from computinged.wordpress.com by Mark Guzdial

Excerpt:

“Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn’t know the first thing about either.” — Marshall McLuhan

 When I first heard this famous quote from McLuhan, I was insulted.  Surely, McLuhan must not appreciate high-quality education, that he considers it no better than mass-market education!  Now, I have a better appreciation for what that quote is saying, and I realize that what he’s saying is deep and important, and relates to what MOOCs are missing.

Tagged with:  

My thoughts on the future of higher education -- March 2013 by Daniel Christian

 

Also, the PDF file of this article is here.

.

From DSC:
Though the title of this article I wrote says 10 years, it may be more or less (and given the pace of change, I would lean towards sooner rather than later).  

If you haven’t read Christensen’s/Horn’s/Johnson’s work re: disruption — such as Disrupting Class and/or The Innovator’s Dilemma — it would be worth your time to do so. They are right on the mark. What they have been asserting is happening within higher education.  The article briefly addresses face-to-face learning and hybrid learning as well.  Readers of this blog will know that I have been pressing for higher ed to reinvent itself in order to stay relevant. There is danger in the status quo, especially when the conversation continues to move away from traditional higher education.

See other perspectives out at evoLLLution.com as well.

 

 

Traditional institutions will close, number of colleges and universities will rise (audio and transcript) — from evoLLLution.com (where LLL stands for lifelong learning) by Richard DeMillo | Director of the Center for 21st Century Universities, Georgia Institute of Technology
Excerpt (emphasis DSC):
.

Well, for me, it always boils down to value. People misunderstand this as assigning value based on salaries or employability, but I mean value in the larger sense. You have to have a reason to ask students to pay more than the marginal costs of delivering education. And with all these revolutions in technology for course delivery, that marginal cost is going to zero very, very quickly [think journalism]. So, every institution that’s going to survive, I think, over the next 50 years, is going to have to make that case. Why is it that tuition at this institution is justified?

The interesting thing about this is it’s going to be accelerated because the old bureaucracies, the old institutional models… are crumbling. At least, their boundaries are crumbling. Let me tell you what I mean by that.

The accrediting agencies, which I think traditionally have had — at least for the last 120 years or so—an institutional focus, are now shifting their focus to students; to competencies, to demonstrations of what students know. And that really starts to cut against institutional entitlement.

I think the conclusion of all this is that, as it becomes harder and harder for… a “Me-Too Institution” to argue for a marginal increase in price, the amount of money that those institutions are going to have available to them to spend on anything but core mission for students is also going to go to zero. So, this is kind of a virtuous cycle; … institutions that are unable to make the value proposition will find themselves more and more strapped for discretionary funds in order to move themselves into a different space. And that’s an ending that’s not very good for most institutions.

From DSC:
How will our/your organization keep from becoming a commodity?  What are we/you all going to bring to the table that’s different, unique, and worth paying for?

 

WalmartOfEducation-Christian2008

 

 

Also see:

The professors who make the MOOCs — from The Chronicle by Steve Kolowich

Excerpt:

Like many professors at top-ranked institutions, Mr. Sedgewick was very skeptical about online education. But he was intrigued by the notion of bringing his small Princeton course on algorithms, which he had taught for five years, to a global audience. So after Princeton signed a deal with an upstart company called Coursera to offer MOOCs, he volunteered for the front lines.

 

Photo illustration

Dave Chidley for The Chronicle

 

 

From DSC:
Some reflections onHollywood meets higher ed — a thought-provoking post by Amanda Ripley

Excerpt:

But online classes are different than the in-person kind: Not only do they have a huge potential profit upside, given the ability to attract tens of thousands of students worldwide, but they are, at their best, performances. No one likes to say this out loud in academia, but it’s true: the most impactful MOOCs are also entertaining. The teacher does not need to be a singing, dancing, joke-telling maniac, but the teacher does need to be riveting, one way or another. The production quality needs to be high. Or the students will evaporate, clicking off to Facebook or Twitter or one of the many other online classes multiplying on the Internet.

 

From DSC:
I post this with a fair amount of hesitation, as mixing the words “higher ed” with Hollywood makes me very uneasy…but Amanda makes some good points in her posting and she highlights yet another potential disruption to the way things are:

 

creativelive-mardch2013

 

From DSC:
How long before we have an OVEE for communities of practice?

From DSC:
Lynda.com, an excellent resource, now uses digital playlists.

Here’s an idea.  How about, in the future, students will be able to run through a series of digital playlists:

  • Focusing on a particular topic and/or a course from:
    • A particular college or university
    • A consortium of colleges and universities
    • A group of approved subject matter experts

If and when a person gets stumped — and the artificial intelligence has reached the end of its usefulness — provide a way for that student to connect with a TA, a professor, the subject matter expert, and/or with other students.

 

FAQs vs. Intelligent Virtual Assistants — from nlinews.com

 

FAQs vs. Intelligent Virtual Assistants

 

Excerpt:

When we know that 96% of people visit a website before they are willing to pick up the phone to resolve a query, it makes it even more important that they get the online help they need. But remember, satisfactory online customer service isn’t just about whether a correct answer was obtained but also the ease of the experience. The key to delivering great intuitive online customer service lies within your choice of an FAQ page or Intelligent Virtual Assistant.

This table shows you the capabilities of both systems, and I know which one I would go for…

 

From DSC:
Note the “Hand over to live agent” piece of that table…

#etmooc

 

 

 

Harvard’s plan to dominate higher education — from jumpthecurve.net by Jack Uldrich

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

Critics of online education and MOOCs may delude themselves by thinking  an online course can never offer the same level of intimacy or interaction as a traditional college course but they are missing a key  component of the MOOC movement: analytics.

What Harvard and other MOOC providers understand is that every time a student interacts with the material on an online course, she provides the institution feedback that allows it to learn a little more about how that student learns. Armed with this information they can then offer future courses designed not only to meet that individual’s specific educational needs but which are delivered in a manner personally tailored to his or her unique learning style.

Imagine Harvard charges a $100 accrediting fee to every student who takes one of its free courses. If one million students—students who formerly populated state universities and colleges—opt instead to take just one accredited course a year from Harvard that amounts to $100 million a year.

 

From DSC:
Readers of this blog will know that I think MOOCs are in an iterative process of morphing into something else, something new.  MOOCs are half-baked at this point.  I say that because it’s like drinking from a firehose (at least as of early March 2013).  But what Jack Uldrich points out is what I was trying to get at in the graphic below.  That is, if technologies that can capture, filter, curate, provide relevant information based upon analytics, one doesn’t have to drink from a fire hose anymore…the drinking fountain now becomes a better metaphor.

 

Watson-MOOCs-NewTypesCollaboration-DChristian-2-14-13

 

 

On a potentially related note — and a veeeerrrryyyy interesting question asked at this article out at Chief Learning Officer:

 

Either one of these forces could create what I’ve been calling “The Forthcoming Walmart of Education(since 2008).  As Smart/Connected TVs proliferate, Apple’s developing infrastructure and ecosystem could easily fill the bill.

 

Emerging student patterns in MOOCs: A graphical view — from mfeldstein.com by Phil Hill

 

studentPatternsInMoocs2

Tagged with:  

The Professors’ Big Stage — op-ed from the New York Times by Thomas Friedman

Excerpt:

I just spent the last two days at a great conference convened by M.I.T. and Harvard on “Online Learning and the Future of Residential Education” — a k a “How can colleges charge $50,000 a year if my kid can learn it all free from massive open online courses?”

Expert panel brings clarity to MOOCs in Business+MOOCs Hangout — fron onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com

The Business+MOOC Panel
Host: Jay Cross
Educators:  Dave Cormier, Stephen Downes, Terri Griffith and George Siemens
Business People: Jos Arets, Bert De Coutere, Lal Jones-Beyy (from Coursera) Mark Finnern,  Jerry Michalski

 

BusinessPlusMoocs-2-27-2013

 Start at 10 mins into the recording.

Also see:

 

From DSC:
Great to see folks from higher education and the corporate world collaborating here — this type of thing needs to occur more often.

A history of media streaming and the future of connected TV — from guardian.co.uk by Alex Zambelli
We’re close to broadly available HD streaming which could trigger mass adoption of connected TV. 

.

internet streaming real shockwave flash netflix

 

 

A precursor to…

 

The Living [Class] Room -- by Daniel Christian -- July 2012 -- a second device used in conjunction with a Smart/Connected TV

© 2024 | Daniel Christian