A bit surprised by this “recent”. By that time, much of what has been lumped under the “Web 2.0” umbrella had already shifted a few times. In fact, the “Web 3.0” hype cycle was probably in the “Trough of Disillusionment” if not the Gartner-called “Slope of Enlightenment”.

In context, these other dimensions of “online presence” in Higher Education take a special meaning. Reminds me of WPcampus. One might have thought that it was about using WordPress to enhance learning. While there are some presentations on leveraging WP as a kind of “Learning Management System”, much of it is about Higher Education as a sector for webwork (-development, -design, etc.).

In some ways, the strongest indictment of the MOOC hype.

Interesting list of clients.

This from a university which had dropped Blackboard for iTunes U.

A bit of context.

Sounds a bit like what Clay Shirky was trying to say about the Napster moment coming to Higher Education, five years ago. Skimmed the critique of Shirky’s piece and was mostly nodding in agreement with it. But there might be a discussion about industries having learnt from the Napster moment. After all, the recording industry has been able to withstand this pressure for close to twenty years. Also sounds like this could be a corollary to Chris Anderson’s (in)famous promotion of the “free” (as in profit) model for businesses, almost ten years ago. In other words, we might live another reshaping of “free” in the next 9-10 years.

How so?

To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

Sign of the times? One part is about economics as the discipline of decision-making. Economists often claim that their work is about any risk/benefit analysis and isn’t purely about money. But the whole thing is still about “resources” or “exchange value”, in one way or another. So, it could be undue influence from this way of thinking. A second part is that, as this piece made clear at the onset, “education is big business”. In some ways, “education” is mostly a term for a sector or market. Schooling, Higher Education, Teaching, and Learning are all related. Corporate training may not belong to the same sector even though many of the aforementioned EdTech players bet big on this. So there’s a logic to focus on the money involved in “education”. Has little to do with learning experiences, but it’s an entrenched system.

Finally, there’s something about efficiency, regardless of effectiveness. It’s somewhat related to economics, but it’s often at a much shallower level. The kind of “your tax dollars at work” thinking which is so common in the United States. “It’s the economy, silly!”

Sounds fairly damning for a business based on helping diverse students with the labour market…

The Others.

At the risk of sounding cynical (which is a very real thing with annotations), reaching a global market can be very imperialistic a move, regardless of who makes it.

Much hiding in this passing comment. As adjuncts, our contributions to the system are perceived through the exploitation lens.

Though that may not really be the core argument of the piece, it’s more than a passing point. Watters’s raising awareness of this other type of “military-industrial complex” could have a deep impact on many a discussion, including the whole hype about VR (and AR). It’s not just Carnegie-Mellon and Paris’s Polytechnique («l’X») which have strong ties to the military. Or (D)ARPANET. Reminds me of IU’s Dorson getting money for the Folklore Institute during the Cold War by arguing that the Soviets were funding folklore. Even the head of the NEH in 2000 talked about Sputnik and used the language of “beating Europe at culture” when discussing plans for the agency. Not that it means the funding or “innovation” would come directly from the military but it’s all part of the Cold War-era “ideology”. In education, it’s about competing with India or Finland. In other words, the military is part of a much larger plan for “world domination”.

Don’t know what the stats are for “non-profit universities and colleges” but it does feel like an increasing portion of their budgets go to marketing, advertising, PR, and strategic positioning (at least in the United States and Canada).

Somewhat surprising, in the current context.

In education as in health, things get really complex when people have an incentive for people not to improve.

Though it’s not exactly the same thing, you could call this “instrumental” or “pragmatic”. Of course, you could have something very practical to amplify learning, and #EdTech is predicated on that idea. But when you do, you make learning so goal-oriented that it shifts its meaning. Very hard to have a “solution” for open-ended learning, though it’s very easy to have tools which can enhance open approaches to learning. Teachers have a tough time and it doesn’t feel so strange to make teachers’ lives easier. Teachers typically don’t make big purchasing decisions but there’s a level of influence from teachers when a “solution” imposes itself. At least, based on the insistence of #BigEdTech on trying to influence teachers (who then pressure administrators to make purchases), one might think that teachers have a say in the matter. If something makes a teaching-related task easier, administrators are likely to perceive the value. Comes down to figures, dollars, expense, expenditures, supplies, HR, budgets… Pedagogy may not even come into play.

Valuing the teaching profession.

Wish they said more. No-cost solutions are neat for one-offs, but pedagogues should be wary of building their practice on services which may start requiring payment.

Time-sensitive, mission-critical, just-in-time, realtime, 24/7…

No.

While this may be true, it sure is sad. Especially as the emphasis on cost is likely to have negative impacts in the long run.

You mean it’s not just about the price of textbooks??

But, but… Eric said it wasn’t marketing!

One sure does.

How many units of learning per dollar?

In direct opposition with the model for most universities, these days. So that may be the fork in the road. But there are more than two paths.

Who came up with such a scheme? A mad scientist? We’re far from Bologna.

There might be something about the connection between learning and “health & wellness”.

And the shift away from “access to content” is still going on, a decade and a half after Napster. If education is a “content industry” and “content industries” are being disrupted, then education will be disrupted… by becoming even more “industrial”.

The battle is raging on, but the issue is predetermined.

One linear model, represented in something of a spiral… Agreed that the transformative experience is tough to “disrupt”, but the whole “content delivery” emphasis shows that the disruption isn’t so quick.

There are a few key cases, here. a) Public Education (much of the planet) b) Parent-Funded Higher Education (US-centric model) c) Corporate Training (emphasis for most learning platforms, these days) d) For-Profit Universities (Apollo Group and such) e) xMOOCs (learning as a startup idea, with freemium models) f) Ad-Supported Apps & Games (Hey! Some of them are “educational”!)

The idea that there’s a “Great Unbundling of (Higher) Education” needs not be restricted to the business side of things, but it’s partly driven by those who perceive education as an “industry”. Producing… graduates?

More consolidation in the LMS market?

In all the platform news, we can talk about “learning management” in view of instructional and course design. But maybe it even goes further than design into a variety of practices which aren´t through-designed.

Important claim, probably coming from the need for reports which answer the “But does it scale?” question.

The reverse of the typical “goal displacement”. Instead of focusing on ensuring our continued employment as “instructors”, we want to make sure learning happens. Deep down, we know we’ll find ways to work, no matter what happens. The comparison with health can be interesting. If doctors had an incentive to keep people sick, society wouldn’t benefit much. Allegedly, Chinese healthcare provides incentives for doctors to help people stay healthy. Sounds like it’d make sense, somehow. Yet education and health are both treated like industries. We produce graduates, future employees, etc. Doctors produce people who fit a pattern of what it means to be healthy in a given social context. There’s even a factory-chain metaphor used when some people apply “lean management” to hospitals or colleges. Not that the problem is with the management philosophy itself. But focusing so much on resource allocation blinds us from a deep reality: as we are getting healthier and more “learned”, roles are shifting.

Education, she sure is changing.