A new model for Higher Education

I recently read two good blog posts about higher education: one by Clark Quinn and the other by Andy Cloverdale. In both posts they point out the need for change in the way that education is provided at the University and the way instructors/professors are trained to teach in the University.

This and the extreme budget cuts to our university in the face of rising enrollments got me thinking about the call for "reform" in how our universities are run in the US today.

Current system in the US

To understand what we are up against in the US, it is important to understand the model of education as it currently stands in the US. Our current system is based on a belief that the ultimate goal of education is to become an expert (which was redefined as "specialist" in the 1980's) in a specific field of study. In other words, the Ph.d. holds all knowledge about a content area, thus making them an "expert".

After a broad basic education at high school (secondary school), a person is expected to learn the basic requirements of functioning in our society (through understanding our culture through the study of history, literature, and social studies, to basic written communication skills through the study of language arts, to basic calculation skills through the study of math, to the understanding of our environment, health. and work processes through the study of science). This is the ideal.

What used to be called Junior College but is now called Community College has developed into two tracks: the first is vocational and advanced technical training to meet the needs of an educated workforce (but not management), especially those in manufacturing and the service industry, whereas the second is the preparation for those underprepared or not able to afford a university or college education. In the second case, students are expected to take a broad range of courses across disciplines. In the first case, students are expected to become proficient in a given skill or discipline. However, in our current model of community college education, those that finish community college (usually with an associate's degree) do not hold expertise even if they have specialized in an area. Rather, they are able to work with the experts and/or gain expertise as they work within the discipline.

The current model for undergraduate education is 2 years of general education courses (also known as gen ed or core courses) from categories of disciplines (i.e. quantitative studies, language and arts, culture, social sciences, man and environment, etc...). Then a student will specialize or "major" or "minor" in a field. The traditional majors and minors normally fall into humanities, social sciences, applied sciences, natural sciences, liberal arts, or professional schools (pre-law, pre-med, education, accounting, etc...). Each major normally has a dedicated faculty consisting of tenured and/or full-time professors and adjunct, part-time, or student instructors. In the last two decades, "interdisciplinary" majors consist of faculty drawn from different majors. Tuition flows into the traditional majors to sustain faculty positions and support staff. The interdisciplinary major ends up being "gravy" (extra money) as there is no support staff or dedicated instructors for these majors.

One problem with the interdisciplinary majors (which I suffered at both the undergraduate and graduate level since both of my degrees were interdisciplinary) is that many of the required courses for these interdisciplinary majors are cut during budget crisis because they are perceived as "electives" within the traditional majors. The result is that required courses for interdisciplinary majors are cut and students in these majors are unable to complete their course work in a timely manor. This has just happened with a course I have taught in our major. It now is a part of Public Policy, an interdisciplinary major. Normally the course is offered either every 2 or 3 semesters, depending on the faculty interest. But now that it is part of another major, the demand for the course has increased. It is possible that I will need to teach it more often or if I leave, it won't be offered at all (we are short staffed within the Communication Dept. for our department's required courses as it is).

Once students leave with a Bachelor's degree, at the end of their college experience, they are expected to have a certain cache of skills and abilities that will make them employable. As a result, more and more colleges are basing their curriculum on employer needs (i.e. computer program specific, accounting law specific, ability to be licensed or certified in a field). The college graduate, in other words, will bring away from the college, the content they will need in the work place.

At the Master and Ph.d. level, students are expected to drill down to one area of expertise, that area being specific to the field of study they are pursuing. Graduate studies are based on the expertise of the faculty in a program/ field of study. In our department (Communication), for example our programs focus on Healthcare communication, political communication, and interpersonal communication. Other schools of communication might focus on mass communication, written communication, speech communication and disorders, intercultural communication, communication strategy, organizational communication, communication technology, etc... Many graduate schools try to build up a reputation in a marketable area. They will hire new faculty to reflect trends in specialties and encourage tenured faculty to change their expertise through grant writing support and research funding. A department that does not bring in funding (either through research, grants, or student tuition) usually will have programs or entire departments cut from the university.

Impact of this model on the Current Higher Ed System

This business model of Higher Education does not connect with the educational needs of the 21st century. As our economy and society moves into the knowledge economy, CONTENT is not as important as understanding how to find, interpret, analyze, and update content/expertise. Companies may be looking for specific content from their graduates, but what they need are employees that have critical thinking and reading, communication, analytic, information literacy, technology literacy, creativity, and collaboration skills. These skills might manifest themselves in different ways within different disciplines, but for the most part they can be found in all fields. As a result, it is important that those at the upper end of higher education (Master, Ph.d.), be prepared to cross the traditional disciplines to understand how each functions within a certain field of study.

Likewise, the internet has made content available on a mass basis, whereas it was limited to the university, publishing houses, depositories (such as libraries), and management before social networking. Access to information is not as important as knowing how to find that information and what to do with it when it is found. "Expertise" can be found outside of those trained and educated in the discipline, thus making the expert professor obsolete. The result is a need for professors that can teach, mentor, and develop life-long learning skills, something that was limited to graduate students in the past.

With the focus on new skills over content and access to expertise and content outside of the university, the current system of testing for content and expertise is lacking. There needs to be a deeper level of assessment that objective tests don't access.

Finally, the current process of appropriating funding based on a major or program will limit education to those areas dictated by market needs and tradition. New ideas will not be funded nor will more imaginative, ground breaking approaches to learning and application of student learning. As education becomes more costly, students and stakeholders expect more with less resources, and education is in greater demand from populations that would not have thought of higher education a generation ago, the current system is not meeting the needs (economically or educationally) of the US society.

A new model

With this in mind, I'd like to propose a new model for higher education in the US.

1) The curriculum of higher ed should change focus from general to specific to one of having students work on a specific area they are interested in in order to learn life long learning skills such as critical reading, self-direction, information literacy, technology literacy, communication skills, and collaboration skills. What if freshman were to start their education with a research project, rather than waiting at the end of their 4 years to bring everything together. They would learn the basic skills needed to learn in any profession. This would allow them to work in smaller groups, to be mentored by an educational specialist, and given the ability to work on those areas where they might be lacking. At the Master and Ph.d level, students would be expected to move in and out of various disciplines, learning in a complex system rather than limiting their learning to just one area. There would not be Ph.d. departments but rather one Ph.d. program in which students worked with faculty in multiple settings doing research in multiple disciplines. This would require a much higher level of thinking and abstraction, creating Ph.d's that could work solving society's problems outside of the unnatural boundaries of academic departments. Many are already doing this.

2) Funding would be a combination of educational professionals (with Ph.d's in a variety of disciplines, but training in learning theory for adults), learning centers, research centers, and learning support services (i.e. collaboration, written and spoken communication, critical reading and writing skills, quantitative research methodology and analysis, project based learning and scientific problem solving, etc...).

3) Learning and degree granting would be based on a portfolio of work and oral examinations rather than a testing of "content". In fact, the use of computers to identify content would be encouraged for the assessment tests rather than excluded from the process. My Ph.d. program does this now. We are given some articles to analyze and then given an oral exam based on our analysis. The topic can be anything related to education whether we are interested in it or not, have learned about it or not. We are given 3 weeks to prepare a paper and then defend it to a committee. Not only are they testing our understanding of the field, they are testing our ability to learn something new in a short time, to find resources to support this learning, to collaborate with colleagues when we don't understand something, and then to present a view point and support it appropriately.

These are just some ideas I have been kicking around. I am sure there are others who have better and more creative ideas. But one thing is for sure, the system will need to change if we are going to keep up with the changes and needs of society.

Sports and culture: the case of the World Cup

Yesterday, my son watched the England vs. USA soccer world cup game. As I am sure there was a different vibe in England, this was actually well watched by many of my son's friends...even those that don't play soccer.

Throughout the game, my son was texting one of his best friends from grade school. "What are they thinking??" (The US). "They should be playing the Latin American game. They can't beat the Brits playing a European game.""Where are the middies?."

At the same time, I heard the commentators, "He's doing what a striker should do." "The D needs to mark his man. That's why they made that goal."

So I asked my son, "Do you think they use the same terminology to describe the game as they do in the US?"

His answer was that he once had watched one of the British league games on line and didn't understand a single thing the commentators were saying.

So this tells me a few things about the cultural differences in sports:

1. There are cultural differences in strategies.  HOW a country plays the game depends on the cultural values they have on winning, "fair play", the team, individual team member responsibilities,  and the role of the sport in that country.
2. Even in the same language, different terminology develops which reflects the region and country's values.  Sports terminology is one of the most culturally ingrained specialty language.  Study the sports terminology and its philology and you'll get a good idea of the culture's values.
3. Sports has always been perceived as a uniting activity.  However, it can also be a dividing activity.
4. Look to other cultures and their strategies to improve your own play and understanding of the sport.  This could then be used to advantage in other parts of your life (i.e. business, education).

Finally, a heartfelt thanks goes out to Andy Cloverdale for posting the link to the World Cup interactive calendar.  We've bookmarked it on delicious and access it daily as this is not a high priority for American Sports (although the US vs. England game was shown on US network TV).

Those were the days? Engaging with social media

Andy Cloverdale had an interesting post that echoes my own thoughts on blogging these days. As I am in the middle of grading numerous papers (most of which are NOT the assignment I gave students) and writing my dissertation (on which I would LOVE to have comments since I feel so isolated as I write it up), I wonder about the interaction that blogging seems to have lost. So I thought it would be interesting to answer Andy's questions in my blog post.

Yet does the adoption of a learner-centric network logic require us to develop aggressive, neo-liberal marketing strategies with an emphasis on self-promotion and immediacy to get noticed?

This is the impression I have from my students. However, more importantly, I see the next generation of internet users developing these skills on their own. As a result, there is more social identity based on how many "friends" you have on facebook, risky behavior that will get immediate attention, and less ability to take part in long, well-thought out indepth discussion. Part of the trouble I see from my students is the inability to read longer articles and/or interpret complex instructions.

While working in a computer lab for one of my classes this semester, I found most students, rather than reading the information provided to them, preferred to ask me simplistic questions on how to get the answer for one piece of their project. They never connected the dots and had little attention for the long term project. Once a piece was found, they never went back to it or connected it to other pieces of the problem. I can't tell you how many times I said to them, "It's in the information on Blackboard. Read through it." At which point, many of them chose to ask a classmate instead.

Is this at the expense of the richer communication and identity formation associated with traditional modes of participation and interaction?

Yes, there is a certain shallowness to the current communication. However, I am finding a backlash to this expedient form of communication. One of my students gave a speech on how facebook and texting is making personal conversations less "personal." I was surprised to see how many people agreed with him and felt that while they did not like this less personal style, they felt trapped by the current tools available to them to communicate this way. I think we will find two camps that develop: those that are "telegraph" communicators and those that reject the current forms of communication and commercialization.

There remains a natural human inclination to want to engage in, and become identified as a member of, communities, but how can this be cultivated in a more network-based culture?

Good question. I think that new tools to help develop these communities will need to be developed. I think the audio/visual tools that allow for two way communication will need to be developed. Most of these tools currently only allow for one way communication. However, as the need for engagement (including certain privacy and easy editing tools within the equipment) increases, there might be better use of video for community building.

However, this cannot happen as long as large corporations increasing control over the internet. This is where mobile technology and new apps might be able to create more democratic access that allows for engagement and community building. Ultimately, however, there needs to be more "personal" indepth contact with others in order to create the community. There needs to be public spaces for meeting, and private spaces for engagement.

Does this equate to a trade-off, where we embrace the advantages of an expansive engagement with wider networks and multifarious communities, or do we restrict ourselves to fewer, or even singular, localised groups?

I do think part of this has to with age. Looking at educational development, teens and young adults tend to have more superficial relationships as they are still creating their identity. Regardless of what tools are available, or even what culture you are looking at, teens will belong to multiple communities. As we age, however, and our identity is established, either by profession, culture, religion, local community, or a larger global community, we tend to limit those organizations and communities we join or are actively engaged in. This happens with or without technology.

I feel the same will happen with the networked society. The difference will be that we may have longer term relationships as a result of the networked society. For example, I have found that I can reconnect with those I went to graduate school with. We created a friendship which will last whether we are constant contact or not. However, the fact that we can connect through the internet means we can still feel connected even when we aren't face to face.

In other words there will be true friends and communities we feel connected to whether we communicate often or not, and then there will be "network friends." I see this even with my children. Facebook's new privacy settings allows this differences in engagements, I have found.

Is blogging changing?

This was going to be a different post. I was going to look at the blogs that I follow and the different ways that I follow them. However, as I began to review (and purge the links as I usually do on an annual basis) the blogs I read, I realized that blogging has really changed this year.

In fact, I still have a core group of blogs that I read on a regular basis. But their style, patterns of posting, and even the way they link to other posts, blogs, and readers has (for the most part) changed drastically.

I see blog posts now following one of three trends:

• Blogs are more informative, reflective, and formal. Michael Hanley's posts have always fit this format. But I noticed this year that Tony Karrer's eLearning Technology become less spontanious and pondering. As a result, blogs appear to be more of a learning tool or marketing tool for an organization. It also seems to be replacing more traditional publishing venues to get research or articles out in a more timely manner. Taking a page from Andy Coverdale and Gina Minks, I have begun to blog my own dissertation research process and results.
  
• I am feeling that I am coming into the middle of a conversation (or the end of a conversation) that was started somewhere else (such as twitter or facebook). It appears that blogging is the reflective or summary of those conversations. Karyn Romeis still has a very conversational style, but she will refer to other conversations she has had on facebook. Harold Jarche will refer to others at aggregated blog sites where he is collaborating with colleagues. As a result, I don't feel that there is as much "conversation" on blogs as there used to be. In addition, I have noticed that Michael, Harold, Karyn, and Tony all have easy access to Twitter on their sites. Ken Allan has moved into a different rhelm this year: 2nd life. His posts often include graphics taken from 2nd Life. In fact, some blogs that I have been reading for the last couple of years either took hyatises or have not had posts in months.
• One thing I have noticed is a decrease in the number of comments. I'm not sure if this is because the conversation has moved to other venues or if the authors are not responding as much. It seems, though, that blogging is still being used to start conversation, but not necessarily on the blogs. There are other technologies being used for the "community". I am always surprised that there are not more comments on Nancy White's Full Circle Associates' blog or Jon Husband's Wirearchy. After all, these blogs are about community and network building!

So what do you think blogging will end up looking like in the next year? Are bloggers that don't tweet at a disadvantage? Is blogging even passe at this point?

By the way, since I listed most of the other blogs that I read on a regular basis, I think I should include the others that are on my igoogle or reader:

Visual's speak: Chrisine Martell writes a nice "creativity" blog
Lucacept: Jenny Luca is a librarian in an Austrian school
Growing Changing Learning Creating: Tom Haskins' blog reminds me of mine...it's all over the place but always thought provoking.
Digital Perspectives: I just love Kathreen's photo blog. But she's been a bit quiet at the end of this year! I hope she starts up again because her photos always make me feel good.

Some predictions for the new decade

Last year, I commented on a number of blogs that I thought the future of elearning would be in mobile technology. In fact, Michael Hanley had a good post evaluating some of the new mobile elearning apps last year.

So, taking my crystal ball, what do I see the trends being in elearning, technology, and higher ed/training in general? These are based on my observations in the classroom, my own children's technology habits and what is happening in their classrooms, and my own research.

1. Mobile technology (including ebooks, smart phones, and smartbooks) will continue to grown and make learning mobile. In the US, if the transportation plans come to fruition, commuters will spend commuting time learning. This might already be happening in other parts of the world.
2. If wifi and 3g technologies are expanded enough, learners will be able to access learning tools anywhere. As a result, learning will take place outside of traditional classrooms, with less face to face time in the classroom and more individualized learning plans. However, the classroom will continue to be the location for assessment. This means there will be a shift for educators from being the source of learning to being the assessor of learning. Universities will still be the source of research (at least in the US) but the location of the research will expand as there is more incentive to work with businesses in developing research that is economically viable.
   
3. In the US (and I think other countries as well), there will be a push for universal standards at the University level to be maintained through technology based assessment tools. The current K-12 standards based education has developed a student that requires structure for learning and assessment. (Disclaimer: I don't think this will be good for education, but I feel the pressure in my own teaching these days).
4. There will be a shift from learning about various tools to learning how to use different classifications of tools to acheive results. There will also be demand to find new apps and tools through a central location. An apps search engine will probably come into popularity at some point in the next few years. For example, need to find a note taking software that can be used on a Mac for academic purposes? Go to the Apps search engine and input the parameters.
5. Video will become more important, especially subtitled video. Why subtitled? Because users can access the images and read the information without others in a room knowing they are accessing the internet/video. This currently happens with texting. Being able to have an instant subtitled video or attaching comments to the video means that the image can be shared privately in public spaces.
6. Learning, business, customer service, and societal values will be customized. Businesses and educators will need to offer options that allow choice by users. (See my earlier post).

So what are your predictions for the New Decade? Write a post and link it to this post or put the location in the comment section. I can't wait to see what others have come up with. To get it started, I'm going to tag 5 people, who I hope will tag 5 others.

Ken Allen (He already made his predictions and inspired this post)
Michael Hanley
Paul Cornies
Anita Hamilton
Sahana
Andy Cloverdale

Residents and visitors

Andy Coverdale had an interesting post on his blog about Dave White's idea of digital "visitors" and "residents" in place of the concept for digital "immigrants" and "natives". I feel much more comfortable with the idea of visitor and residents as it allows for different generations and levels of engagement with technology, applications, and tools. As I commented on Andy's blog:

This appears soooo much more useful than natives and immigrants. It also makes me wonder about the students (regardless of generation) who are visitors, but we want to become residents. Does this also tie into online communities (i.e. you might be a visitor in one type of community, as I am to facebook, but a resident at another, as I am with ning)? How do we get people to become “residents”? I think the question of trust is a big issue.

When Andy asked me if I thought that this was determined by socio-technical or platform factors, I replied:

I guess one problem I had with the digital natives or immigrants was that fact that there was a uniform amount of knowledge in “technology”. I have a greater understanding of the technological underpinnings of new technology than my husband or children. But I would be considered an immigrant. But the fact is that technology continually changes and with it the socio-cultural structures. I was on Facebook within the first year that it was developed as a member of our University. It changed drastically when it was “opened” up. My kids use it differently than friends and relatives of my generation.

Within the technological structures, there can be multiple socio-cultural structures and practices. Just like habitat structures can be similar between urban, suburban, rural, and different countries, structures between technology can be similar. However, the town next to mine differs because of a different community feeling. Experience, ties to the community, understanding of communication cues between members of the community affect the way someone feels coming into a new community. My husband and I lived in a neighborhood for 7 years and never felt a part of the community and felt as if we were considered “visitors”. However, our current community, we feel like residents as we know how things work, who the players are, and the subtle communication cues.

I feel it is the same with technology in that some will always feel like technology visitors as they learn new technology. Some may always “fit in” immediately and be a resident where ever they go. Still others will be a visitor initially and then move to resident status depending on the technology and community support in using the technology. And finally, others will be visitors at some technologies (usually by choice) and residents at others. I think there is a lot more choice in the use of technology and a lot more community influence that creates trust in using a certain technology.

In a related post on wirearchy blog, they discuss the importance of revisiting socio-technical systems business design field. As they contend, the "social business design" sounds very similar for the socio-technical systems business design theories in organizational development. However, the education field has continued to this body of literature over the last decade.

I think what is relevant in both of these fields is that it is hard to disassociate the tools that have been adapted for use in education and business from the social structures that continue to evolve. New tools are created as there is a social need; and tools are "retooled" with new social practices that develop around the new tools and the "retools". This is especially important to recognize in virtual groups, organizations, and workplaces. However, it also spills over into the personal life and the line between "personal" and "work" becomes blurred.