I have been going through a Conference Season, attending different conferences discussing the future of Higher Education with the most inevitable discussion on Technology in Higher Education. It is somewhat amusing to hear so many different views somewhat converging on the same answer: That it would change education, but contrary to what some of its most radical proponents say, it won't make the traditional structures of Higher Education obsolete. So whether a speaker launches into a revolutionary manifesto or a conservative soul-searching while speaking about technology, in the end, it is always the establishment message that returns - that Higher Ed isn't going to wither away.
This view, however, is more of a reflection of the people in the room than the possibilities of technology. The discussion about technology in education always start with the somewhat patronising and now cliched question about how many people have started a MOOC and how many have completed it. In the conferences I have been to, the proportion of the audience who ever signed up for a MOOC has been quite low, given that people in the room were usually college educated and considered themselves, in some capacity, to be qualified to participate in a discussion about innovation in education. However, the follow up question about completion rates, where only very few hands go up, expose the true nature of the discussion: Its predictable answer is used as the backdrop of the grand proclamation that the traditional Higher Ed is not going to go away.
My problem with this kind of reasoning is that this is somewhat circular. MOOCs are a highly conservative phenomenon, based on the prestige of the traditional Higher Ed. If there is no prestigious colleges, there will be no MOOCs, or at least, they will be very different. Positioning MOOCs as the Higher Ed killer, and then demonstrating their limited efficacy, is a game that serves the conferences well, but do not have much validity outside them. Because it is not the MOOCs that are rendering universities obsolete; and the alternatives to traditional Higher Ed may actually come from more unexpected sources.
Indeed, traditional Higher Ed has plenty to worry about. We talk endlessly about employability and that graduates don't get jobs, or worse, they are often unemployable, and present this being the biggest challenge to the legitimacy of Higher Education worldwide. However, the fact that growing employability is perhaps impossible, and graduate joblessness and uncertainties in career isn't about the economic cycle but a persistent economic reality that we may have to live with for a very long time, remain usually omitted. The employability proponents are usually playing a safe game, with the full knowledge that their prescriptions, that employers engage closely with educators in designing curricula and delivering education, may never actually be followed, because employers and educators live in two different worlds. However, even the educators feel it too daunting to challenge the proposition for the fear of being branded as an ivory tower resident: However, in private conversations, they usually complain that narrow skills, the type you get when you are driven by an utility/profit maximising employer helping define the curricula, is what creates the graduate jobs problem, and not the other way round.
Besides, the very fact that the Higher Ed has now been held to account for jobs provision, a task which they can't possibly achieve themselves (particularly when employment creation isn't seen as the employers' responsibility any more and most business organisations are completely divorced from community responsibility of any kind) is indicative that the traditional models are obsolete. The traditional model of Higher Ed, a system of preservation of social status quo and a mechanism to create and populate the institutions of state and commerce, adapts badly to the mass production of technical skills, which is what it is being asked to do. It is being asked to deliver, and being held to account, for the failed promise of the liberal politics, the trivial luxuries and securities of middle class life. They are out of sync even before technology entered into the equation.
See MOOCs in this context, and it may be clear that they are a defensive move rather than a revolutionary one. It is not about replacing Higher Ed, but about rephrasing the conversation: It is about exporting the inside life of the university to the outside world, supplementing the dreams of middle class life with a little more access to culture, about allowing a few moments of self-elevation within a stream of drudgery and boredom. It is an escape from the ever sinking feeling that accompanies life in a job, and it is an escape, or an attempt to, for the universities for their social mandate of producing graduates with jobs. It is technology enslaved, for preservation of status quo, rather than a technology revolution.
However, a technology revolution is still under way, regardless: The fact that connectivity is easier, media is disrupted, collaboration is omnipresent and, most importantly, context, rather than content, is underpinning new knowledge, shifting the relationship between teaching and learning. The ability to learn without being taught is going up, at the same time the ability to making learning effective solely through teaching is going down. At the very moment the universities are being asked to produce the producers, both the nature of production and the motivation to produce are both changing: So the very unchanging idea of Higher Education that we have, and the one we tend to defend in the conferences, need to be interrogated and revalidated.
This revalidation may mean a number of different things. For example, one needs to revisit the calendar - of fixed term dates - aligned with the agrarian calendar of the past, and see whether this still remains valid. Second, one may need to balance all the different priorities, practical knowledge, critical engagement, development of character and enterprise, and therefore review the structure of the courses: Would we be looking at a competency based two year diplomas as the basic currency followed by one or two year of higher intellectual pursuit, rather than continuing the apartheid between the 'Higher Higher' and 'Mediocre Higher' education? Third, the learning communities, built around this lovely notion of 'university life', a preserve that the privileged certainly enjoys but may appear a luxury for the less endowed, may also need to be reinvented, not just to accommodate the masses, but also to create and disseminate the most appropriate type of knowledge in the current context. Also, the diploma, or the end of course awards, need to be thought through - the degree inflation may be changing the field completely and there must be better ways of doing this than just developing a fetish for university vintage.
So, by way of conclusions, let's not define the challenge to the university in terms of what MOOCs do, but in the context of the change of the role of and expectations from the university and the true 'disruptive' possibility of technology. There is education technology - of delivery and collaboration - which can enhance the learning experience within today's university and are already doing so; but there are technologies of learning, which encompass these and go beyond, enabling connections and conversations far beyond traditional university campuses are designed to facilitate. These are the technologies which will intensify the social pressures on the university as we know it. This is the challenge to watch out for.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The Creativity Imperative Businesses today consider creativity of their staff as a critical, possibly the most critical, factor for their ongoing survival. This is because the environment, political, social and commercial, has become so fluid; as Yogi Berra put it, “the future isn’t what it used to be”. Constant change, demanding and more aware customers and citizens, rapid information dissemination through new technologies of information and communication, and intense competitive and regulatory pressures, are pushing companies and people who work for them to innovate and adapt continuously. Set in this context, employee creativity has a whole new meaning. It is traditionally understood as people thinking about products and services, which did not exist before, or tweaking and improving the existing ones. Competitive pressures add to this creativity imperative. Information is fast and cheap, and communication technology is driving the costs of production and distribution
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.