You’ll never guess who’s disrupting online learning — from forbes.com by Chris Proulx, President & CEO of eCornell

Excerpt:

The reality behind the hype is that online education has been disruptive for over a decade, well before MOOCs. Certainly since the economic downturn in 2009, we have seen an accelerated focus on agile work practices and more rapid adjustments in company strategy. This change has created opportunities for employees to drive their career growth by becoming masters at acquiring and applying new skills in short bursts. Much of this has come through on the job skill development, but individuals and organizations alike are also adapting their more formal training and education approaches so it aligns with the accelerating pace of business.

…

First, in the 21st economy, education needs to be as much about context as it needs to be about content. Second, it needs to put the learner in control of the pace, timing, and application of the learning. Third, it needs to blend concepts with practice by aligning expertise from traditional faculty with non-traditional expert-practitioners in order to drive relevance.

…

But just like with iTunes, the next step for the digitization of higher ed will need to come with new sustainable business models, not just technology, to drive widespread adoption and change.

 

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:

 

 
 

Gartner hype cycle for education 2013 — with thanks to Cammy Bean for pointing this resource out

 

GartnerHypeCycleforEducation-July2013

 

 

The Role of Online and Technology-Enabled Learning in Meeting President Obama’s 2020 Graduation Goal
November 20, 2013
Lead Presenter: Hal Plotkin (Department of Education, US)

 

The Online Revolution: Learning without Limits
November 21, 2013
Lead Presenter: Daphne Koller (Coursera, USA)

 

Reinventing Education
November 22, 2013
Lead Presenter: Anant Agarwal (edX & MIT, USA)

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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 team–based 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

.

 

 

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:

 

Beyond the course: Reducing higher education’s overall cost — from The National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT)

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

In the October 2012 issue of The Learning MarketSpace, NCAT announced that this newsletter would undergo a substantial change in its content and format to reflect NCAT’s new direction. NCAT is making a transition from a focus on conducting redesign programs and public events to concentrating on analysis and change strategies based on the data we have collected and the experiences we have had over the past 13 years. The following article came to fruition following a solicitation from the White House asking NCAT for ideas in addition to course redesign about how higher education productivity could be increased. Among the options: redesign the department, redesign the curriculum, redesign academic support and student services, and redesign the administration.

Sixteen years ago, I wrote, “A major problem that continues to confront higher education is that of rising costs. With the average cost of attendance consuming a substantial portion of the median family income, for many Americans what is at stake is nothing less than the continued viability of the American dream. The stakes are high for higher education as well. Caught in a closing vise between new demands for enrollment and declining rates of revenue growth, colleges and universities must figure out a way to do more with less.

Recognizing that tuition increases can no longer be used as a safety valve to avoid dealing with the underlying issues of why costs increase so much, campuses have begun the hard work of cost containment. But after sharpening priorities, sometimes making tough choices in light of those priorities, and asking everyone—administrators and faculty alike—to work harder, campuses are still groping for ways to wrestle costs under control.

At the same time, colleges and universities are discovering exciting new ways of using technology. For most institutions, however, new technologies represent a black hole of additional expense as students, parents, and faculty alike demand access to each new generation of equipment and software. Most campuses have bolted on new technologies to a fixed plant, a fixed faculty, and a fixed notion of classroom instruction. Under these circumstances, technology becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution of cost containment. By and large, colleges and universities have not yet begun to grab hold of technology’s promise to reduce costs.

Containing costs—and making use of new technologies to help contain costs—requires a fundamental shift in thinking. It requires one to challenge the fundamental assumption of the current instructional model: that faculty members meeting with groups of students at regularly scheduled times and places is the only way to achieve effective student learning.”

These words are more true today than they were 16 years ago.

 

Recent trends in storytelling and new business models for publishers — from smashingmagazine.com by Jose Martinez Salmeron; with thanks to Gary Hayes for the Scoop on this

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

It is clear that the ongoing dramatic transformation of the media industry in all its formats (audio, video and text) leaves the door open for a complete reinvention of the publishing business. This transition has opened up opportunities for experimentation, and many players are trying to define the future of media in general, and journalism in particular.

In this article, we will discuss several recent such experiments, with special focus on new forms of storytelling, as well as new business models for publishers — a fascinating recent trend called “subcompact publishing” will be our main reference.

The Media Industry As We Knew It Is Gone

…

“The publishing ecosystem is now primed for complete disruption.” – Craig Mod

 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian