ADDIE must die! — from knowledgestarblog.wordpress.com by David Grebow

Excerpt:

What’s Missing?
As I read over this list, I kept missing some simple questions. Here are just a few:

  • What is the real problem and will it still be a problem by the time we [are] finished with the training program?
  • Does this help produce a learning experience that is social?
  • Will the program enable a community of learners who can be in contact after the program?
  • What is the best solution? Are we taking ALL the ways people can learn into account?
  • Does the solution really call for a training program? Would other approaches work as well if not better?
  • Will a passing test score mean people really learned how-to do something?
  • Does the solution relate directly to my business goals?
  • How can I measure the results?  Improved performance? Faster time-to-performance? More sales? More successful innovation?

Using ADDIE the answer was more often than not a resounding “NO”.

There’s another model for learning that asks more appropriate questions, and works for Enterprise 2.0 programs.

I’ll cover it in Part Two: The Better Learning Model

 

From DSC:
David brings up some excellent points in his 10/17/12 posting above. 

What gets me here is why, after having just graduated w/ my Masters in Instructional Design for Online Learning in June 2011, was ADDIE the most predominantly taught Instructional Design (ID) model throughout the entire program?  What the (*@%^^?   How long does it take to get new thinking/new models into our education-related programs? (Sebastian Thrun asked a similar question in his recent keynote address at the 18th Annual Sloan Consortium Conference on Online Learning:  “Why haven’t Colleges of Education contacted him about what’s working with Udacity!?!”  Why did 170 of his face-to-face students opt to take his more game-like online-based course?)

Phrases popping into my mind:

  • Streams of content
  • Communities of practice
  • Communities of inquiry
  • Real-time, training on demand
  • Informal learning
  • Staying relevant
  • Reinventing ourselves
  • Engagement

 

 

 

 

The need for more experimentation, innovation within higher education.
By Daniel Christian for the CHFE12 MOOC

Last week, I attended the 18th Annual Sloan Consortium on Online Learning in Orlando, FL (USA). After hearing Sebastian Thrun’s excellent keynote address, I was very troubled by a couple of questions that kept arising in my mind (which I’ll get to in a minute). It turns out that Sebastian had heard Sal Kahn at a TED talk a while back, where he learned of the impact that Sal was having and the pedagogy Sal was using.

Now bear in mind that Sal was not in education.  He was working in the financial services industry, putting together training-related items for his nephews/family members.

Then bear in mind that Sal Kahn has arguably had one of the most significant impacts on K-12 of any individual in recent decades – and even on institutions of higher education (in terms of professors investigating or starting to use the flipped/inverted classroom model).

Then bear in mind that Sebastian Thrun didn’t run his idea by anyone in Stanford’s administration! His email out to some folks started going viral, and within days the enrollment numbers were already in the thousands.  (And at that point he got asked to drop by his Admin’s offices! 🙂  I wonder what would have happened if Sebastian would have first asked Stanford’s leadership for permission…? It may never have occurred.)

Sebastian’s and Peter Norvig’s AI course went onto graduate 23,000 people (with an initial enrollment around 160,000). Then, there’s the related Coursera organization/endeavor — again, a business that needed to be created outside of the traditional institutions of higher education.

So, recapping things:

  • Sebastian didn’t run things by anyone in his administration
  • He ended up needing to create his own company – outside of traditional higher ed (Udacity)
  • He was significantly influenced by someone completely outside of  education
  • Coursera and Udacity operate outside the policies and procedures of traditional institutions of higher education

So, the following two questions arose in my mind last week:

  1. Why didn’t these innovations come from – or why weren’t they developed within – traditional institutions of K-12/higher education?
  2. Why did such influence have to occur – in great part – from outside of “the established systems”?

Any answer to these questions is troubling to me. But one plausible explanation involves leadership. Many of our leaders in higher education did not grow up with the Internet and with LANs, WANs, HTTP protocols, etc.  They didn’t grow up using the tools that today’s youth are using.

As such, they don’t always appreciate the power and potential of technology. I don’t mean to point fingers and play a blame game here. That’s not the point. The point is, leaders are people with finite gifts and abilities. Like all of us, they have been shaped by their experiences and they, too,  have their histories. They were moved into their positions of responsibility due to the needs of of the institutions at certain points in time. But the needs of those institutions have since changed.

The problem is, those in key leadership positions will either need to:

  • Quickly come to appreciate the disruptive, powerful impact that technologies can have (i.e. be sold on them) and strategize accordingly
    and/or
  • Find other positions (which most likely won’t be happening if normal self-preservation tendencies/principles of power continue to occur)

Blockbuster comes to mind as an organization that was once dominant, but disregarded the disruptive impact of technology and eventually had to declare bankruptcy. One can think of other examples from other industries as well (can’t we Kodak? Borders?).

Such reflections were reinforced when I read Selingo’s (2012) article from earlier today where he wrote, “It’s clear to me that the needed reforms for student financial-aid are unfortunately not going to come from higher education. Many financial-aid officials remain opposed to the model letter, as well as many other regulations.”

Like Selingo, I don’t see change coming from within the current system.  I hope that I’m sorely mistaken here, but from the pulse checking I’ve been doing, the conversation seems to be continuing to move away from traditional institutions of higher education (example here and another example here).  I hope that we can pick up the pace of experimentation within our organizations to find ways to lower the costs while still providing effective means of educating people.

Selingo, J.  (2012, October 15). In a Broken Student Aid System, Colleges Are Part of the Problem. In The Quick and the Ed. Retrieved from http://www.quickanded.com/2012/10/in-a-broken-student-aid-system-colleges-are-part-of-the-problem.html

Addendum/also see:

Sal Kahn and Eric Schmidt - at Google Talks -- October 2012

 

 

 

 

Online Education Grows Up, And For Now, It's Free -- from NPR.org

 

 

From DSC:
Sending a special thanks out to Dr. Kate Byerwalter,
Professor at Grand Rapids Community College for this resource!

 

Also see:

 

Technology and the broken higher education cost model: Insights from the Delta Cost Project — from Educause by Rita Kirshstein and Jane Wellman

Excerpt:

Although U.S. higher education has faced numerous crises and dilemmas in its history, the situation in which colleges and universities find themselves at the moment is indeed different. Shrinking public subsidies coupled with historic rises in tuitions come at the same time that colleges and universities have been tasked to dramatically increase the number of individuals with postsecondary degrees. Additionally, many of these students need financial aid, putting further strains on the higher education system. The stratification between rich and poor institutions in their access to resources is also growing. These conditions make the current “cost model” under which higher education has typically operated no longer sustainable and have led to college and university leaders examining alternative ways to deliver both high-quality and affordable higher education. These alternatives incorporate technology and include access to distance-delivered education and services, a focus on learners’ outcomes rather than inputs, and technologically sophisticated buildings and classrooms.

The changes are welcome and largely overdue in much of higher education, but unless the use of technology, whether in instruction or in the operation of the institution, is guided by an understanding of higher education costs and cost structures, its use will not fix the problem of a broken higher education cost model. This problem is not confined to the way that instruction is funded and delivered; rather, it is much broader, including the costs of academic and administrative overhead and the largely unexamined “fixed costs” that drive so much of institutional spending. To implement technological innovations that can improve both efficiency and effectiveness, leaders must be guided in their efforts by a strong understanding of the impact of the innovations on both costs and revenues, as well as on learning outcomes. Without this understanding, leaders are likely to follow the usual model of innovation in higher education: implementing program add-ons, which are sometimes successful and sometimes not but which inevitably increase costs rather than replacing or reducing them and ultimately fail to take hold in ways that will leverage systemic improvements.

Debt collectors cashing in on student loans — from the New York Times by Andrew Martin

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

…many borrowers are struggling to pay off their student loans, and the debt collection industry is cashing in.

As the number of people taking out government-backed student loans has exploded, so has the number who have fallen at least 12 months behind in making payments — about 5.9 million people nationwide, up about a third in the last five years.

In all, nearly one in every six borrowers with a loan balance is in default. The amount of defaulted loans — $76 billion — is greater than the yearly tuition bill for all students at public two- and four-year colleges and universities, according to a survey of state education officials.

In an attempt to recover money on the defaulted loans, the Education Department paid more than $1.4 billion last fiscal year to collection agencies and other groups to hunt down defaulters.

 

From DSC:
Administrators throughout the country need to ask, how can we cut the price of our degrees by 50% or more?  No kidding!  I realize that sounds crazy, but if we don’t do this, cheaper — and increasingly attractive/convenient — alternatives will continue to develop. The conversation is not moving in a positive direction folks.
  There is a limit to people’s incomes and patience here.

The Washington Monthly - The Magazine - The Siege of Academe [Kevin Carey]

Excerpt:

The ongoing carnage in the newspaper industry provides an object lesson of what can happen when a long-established, information-focused industry’s business model is challenged by low-price competitors online. The disruptive power of information technology may be our best hope for curing the chronic college cost disease that is driving a growing number of students into ruinous debt or out of higher education altogether. It may also be an existential threat to institutions that have long played a crucial role in American life.

.

From DSC:
If higher ed doesn’t respond more forcefully/significantly to the perfect storm it finds itself in, people will find other ways of getting employed and staying employed. The conversation continues to move away from institutions of traditional higher education (here’s but one example). Control is an illusion.

The middle class falls further behind -- part of the perfect storm for higher ed in the US

 

From DSC:
Along with a host of other trends, this is a piece of the perfect storm in higher ed. People will find a way to make a living — whether this involves “traditional” higher education or not. From a career development side of things, robotics may make these graphics even more pronounced as jobs move from being done by humans to jobs being done by robots.

Also see:

 

.

Addendums:

 

Your future TV is not about Tele-Vision [Eaton]

Your future TV is not about Tele-Vision — from FastCompany.com by Kit Eaton

Excerpt (emphasis below from DSC; also see the above categories to see how I see this as a highly-relevant component to our future learning ecosystems):

Then imagine what a hybrid of Apple’s tech and efforts like GetGlue, Shazam, and other interactive systems will be like when they’re more integrated into your 2017 smart TV. The big screen in your living room won’t be a one-way window into another world you can’t touch anymore. It’ll be a discovery engine, a way to learn facts, interact with the world, talk to people, find new and surprising content to absorb. Advertisers will love it, and companies like Nielsen–which largely has to guess all those stats about who watches which show at primetime nowadays–will be able to get accurate data…which may mean more appealing shows.

 

 

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

 

 

Also see:

An open letter to students: You’re the game changer in next-generation learning — from educause by Mark David Milliron

Excerpt:

I say that because the most-needed voice in this conversation is not ours. We in the ed-tech world have been talking, visioning, and showcasing innovation for decades. Based on the results to date, I don’t think our voice is enough. I’ve come to the conclusion that the voice that will push real change is yours. Indeed, if you—the students—are willing to accept a set of key educational responsibilities as you stand up for your core educational rights, you might be the real game changer we need in catalyzing next-generation learning.

The decline of US manufacturing jobs and living standards — from bbc.co.uk by Jonny Dymond BBC News, Michigan

Excerpt:

For decades America’s vibrant manufacturing sector provided poorly educated workers a bridge to the middle class. But today’s plants need highly skilled workers who know their way around ultra-high tech machinery.

From DSC:
While manufacturing levels are back up, unemployment rates continue (McAfee, 8/8/12 –> “But new manufacturing facilities in America and elsewhere today don’t need large numbers of hard-working-but-unskilled workers; they need small numbers of hard-working-and-highly-skilled ones.”).

I have a feeling the middle class is going to continue to shrink here in America, unless we can reinvent ourselves. But reinventing ourselves requires that people learn about new things — something much more feasible if people like to learn. 

Upon graduating high school, do our students like to learn? Upon graduating college, do your students enjoy learning about new things? If not, how can we make learning more engaging and enjoyable?  That’s imporant these days because there”s no more hopping on the corporate bandwagon for 40 years and then retiring with a nice pension/401(K) plan.  All of us will need to “go back to our drawing boards” many times during our lifetimes now.

 Also see:

 

 

The financially sustainable university — from bain.com, a Bain Brief by Jeff Denneen and Tom Dretle

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Still, at the majority of institutions, the pace of change is slower than it needs to be. Plenty of hurdles exist, including the belief that things will return to the way they always were. (Note: They won’t.) But the biggest obstacle is more fundamental: While leaders might have a sense of what needs to be done, they may not know how to achieve the required degree of change that will allow their institution not just to survive, but also thrive with a focused strategy and a sustainable financial base.

Too often, stakeholders believe that the current cash crunch and need for change is a temporary phenomenon that will subside as the economy continues to improve. But those who see things this way probably haven’t been exposed to the data presented here and in other reports that show convincingly that this time is different. Faculty and other key stakeholders must be shown clear and compelling facts to disprove the “return to the status quo” notion and to clarify the corresponding negative implications and consequences of inaction.

.

The Financially Sustainable University - July 2012 - a Bain Brief by Denneen & Dretle

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680196/a-new-education-for-business-leaders-for-a-new-future

.

This is because education is shifting from a focus on what works for teachers to a focus on what students need to succeed and thrive.

Tagged with:  

My hats off to Clayton Christensen and Henry Eyring!  My respect level just went up yet another notch for these two people.

Seeing as Clayton is a Professor at ***Harvard‘s*** Business School and Henry is an ***Administrator*** at Brigham Young University, their stance and recent letter to college and university trustees nationwide is a wonderful example of true leadership.   They risked many things by taking a stand and urging institutions of higher education to change. Their purpose is noble. Their message should be heeded.

From the website of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni: (emphasis by DSC)

Clayton Christensen: higher ed trustees “crucial as never before”
Harvard Business School professor (and bestselling author of The Innovator’s Dilemma) Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring of Brigham Young University recently sent a letter to college and university trustees nationwide, recognizing a critical turning point for the future of higher education. “If you’ve been serving for more than a few years, you’ve seen a big change in the nature of trustees meetings,” the authors wrote. “Before the downturn of 2008, the agenda tended to focus on growth and on ways to fund it…. At some point, the bubble was bound to burst—or at least start to sag. Now that it has, your role becomes crucial as never before.” The letter urges trustees to demand innovative solutions to expand student access and improve academic quality at their institutions: “The innovators can do more than merely avoid disruption. They can help usher in a new age of higher education, one of unprecedented access and quality, a combined industrial revolution and renaissance.”

 

.

Addendum on 7/16/12:

© 2024 | Daniel Christian