I may be away from the university for a while over Easter, but like most with an academic background, I find it difficult to switch off. I’m now compiling my holiday reading.

Starting with “Clever” by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, it’ll be an interesting follow up to “Why Should Anyone be Led byYou?”

Secondly, this by Evgeny Morozov.

And finally, a bit of research from CIPD into into employee voice and social media.

Well, after 5 weeks of some interesting reading, writing, and occasional frustration, I completed my MOOC through Coursera.

This is what I got at the end of it:

Interesting to note the disclaimers at the bottom of the certificate:

PLEASE NOTE: THE ONLINE OFFERING OF THIS CLASS DOES NOT REFLECT THE ENTIRE CURRICULUM OFFERED TO STUDENTS ENROLLED AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH. IT DOES NOT AFFIRM THAT THIS STUDENT WAS ENROLLED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH OR CONFER
A UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH DEGREE, GRADE OR CREDIT. THE COURSE DID NOT VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF THE STUDENT

Interestingly, Professor Martin Hall, VC of Salford University has completed the same MOOC, and has provided a very thoughtful blog about both his experiences, and his views on the MOOC phenomenon.

He asks how MOOCs might acts as a disruption and provides three points of perspective, and three of possibility:

1. Time on Task – he estimates that based on the time needed to complete this MOOC and relating this to credits, you would need to complete 60 equivalent MOOCs per year for 3 years to cover a full undergraduate degree programme
2. Pre-requisites- building up a full suite of MOOCs to degree equivalence will probably require the re-invention of the conventions of successive years of study, and of entry requirements in the form of prior completion of lower-level MOOC
3. Validation – the only validation on this MOOC was online acceptance of an honor code. If MOOCs are to provide credit with any currency, then this will have to change.

The three possibilities identified are:

1. MOOCs are a smart marketing move for other courses
2. They could finish off the lecture as a form of conveying information, and the teacher becomes an expert guide in a world of abundance rather than a lecturer passing down wisdom from the podium.
3. Pre-registration sign-ups for MOOC-like taster courses may become an element in pathways into formal learning. He makes the point that a lot of metrics about his learning behaviour will now be available to Coursera! I guess they know all about me too!

So the implications for us?

If we are to “get into MOOCs”, we need to have a clear idea of what we are trying to achieve. how we would measure success? What software we use, whether we develop our own or use an existing platform? Can we use the lessons learnt to redevelop the way in which we approach our on campus teaching – could this finally be a chance to move away from the oft criticised (but still delivered) 1 hour lecture, and use academic staff more as guides to learning? Could it provide better, and different support to our students in partner colleges?

There are challenges to be brought about by the ready and well curated access to information and learning, I still don’t think that the changes will be an end to universities we just need to redefine what our role will become.

A piece in this week’s Higher is worth a look. Graham Gibbs is writing on the usefulness of specific kinds of contact and the learning gains that can be achieved.

Much of this is based on his recently republished paper “Dimensions of Quality”, previously referenced in this blog.

I don’t ink the outcomes should be any surprise, but it’s always useful to see the assertions backed by research.

I think the key issue raised is about how we communicate to students, and their parents, about how higher education actually works. The simplistic measure of percentage scheduled teaching time publicised in Key Information Sets is at best unhelpful, and at worst, deliberately misleading.

Today’s Guardian provides a short article on the  decision of UCAS – influenced by universities – not to publish detailed information on the number of applications to individual institutions, not even to ministers.

The argument is that making such information available early in the recruitment cycle could potentially destabilise a university with low application numbers. This could eventually become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Shouting from the safety of Oxford et al are those who say we must tell everyone what is going on in detail with application data, so that no one sends their children to possibly failing institutions.

Matt Robb of Parthenon Consulting is quoted as predicting:

“that struggling universities will be looking to sell off key assets, such as their business schools, in order to cope with lost fees that could run to the tens of millions. He has already received telephone calls from some institutions wanting to discuss possible mergers.

“In the last six to 12 months there has been a sea change in universities’ willingness to pursue radical new options, including merger and private investment,” he says. “It is quite extraordinary how quickly some institutions have broadened their thinking.”

He adds: “It is now clear that you’ve got to be distinctive and you’ve got to think about the quality and value of what you offer. People have been talking about this in the sector for a long time, but almost no one took it on board. Being a bog-standard general university is no longer enough.”

Some of the last paragraph links to my previous post on the recent IPPR paper, and the need for universities to create a distinctive identity.

For those still new to the idea of MOOCs, and particularly looking for a clear definition of and distinction between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, then here might be an interesting place to start.

An essay by the by the Institute of Public Policy Research, a progressive UK  thinktank was published today, which aims to provoke creative dialogue and challenge complacency in HE institutions about the future of higher education.

From the executive summary:

“This report challenges every player in the system to act boldly.

Citizens need to seize the opportunity to learn and re-learn throughout their lives. They need to be ready to take personal responsibility both for themselves and the world around them. Every citizen is a potential student and a potential creator of employment.

University leaders need to take control of their own destiny and seize the opportunities open to them through technology – Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for example – to provide broader, deeper and more exciting education. Leaders will need to have a keen eye toward creating value for their students.

Each university needs to be clear which niches or market segments it wants to serve and how. The traditional multipurpose university with a combination of a range of degrees and a modestly effective research programme has had its day.

The traditional university is being unbundled.

Some will need to specialise in teaching alone – and move away from the traditional lecture to the multi-faced teaching possibilities now available:

•the elite university

•the mass university

•the niche university

•the local university

•the lifelong learning mechanism.”

And,

There are three fundamental challenges facing systems all round the world:

1. How can universities and new providers ensure education for employability?

A great example of the future is the excellent employability centre at Exeter University in the UK which offers all students sustained advice and promotes volunteering as well as academic success. Given the rising cost of degrees, the threat to the market value of degrees and the sheer scale of both economic change and unemployment, this is a vital and immediate challenge.

2. How can the link between cost and quality be broken?

At present, the global rankings of universities in effect equate inputs with output. Only universities which have built up vast research capacity and low student:teacher ratios can come out on top. Yet in the era of modern technology, when students can individually and collectively create knowledge themselves, outstanding quality without high fixed costs is both plausible and desirable. New entrants are effectively barred from entry. A new university ranking is required.

3. How does the entire learning ecosystem need to change to support alternative providers and the future of work?

A new breed of learning providers is emerging that emphasise learning by practice and mentorship. Systematic changes are necessary to embedding these successful companies on a wider scale.

The key messages from the report to every player in the system are that the new student consumer is king and standing still is not an option. Embracing the new opportunities set out here may be the only way to avoid the avalanche that is coming”

As with so many reports of this nature, it will contain the usual amount of hyperbole, but the authors make it clear that they don;t have all the answers – they are just identifying many of the questions and possible options and ideas for institutions.

The idea that ” traditional multipurpose university with a combination of a range of degrees and a modestly effective research programme has had its day” resonates – for this and other universities to succeed n future, we will need to much more clearly identify and articulate what it is we do that is different, and why learners should come to us.

A critical reading of the paper is published by David Kernohan, on his blog. Many of the issues that David raises, particularly in regard to the authors being from Pearson, and therefore possibly having a vested interest, are worth taking on board.

Further comments on the paper can be found on the blog of Ferdinand von Prondzynski, the principal of Robert Gordon University. He writes:

“The essay does have a number of interesting insights, and is worth reading. But its five ‘models’ are not revolutionary – they (or something like them) are long in place, and it is not difficult to attach a model number to almost any existing university you might care to mention. The problem is that, as listed, they express a hierarchy, and indeed a hierarchy both of esteem and of resourcing. The trick in establishing a new higher education model that is not Harvard-like but is recognised as representing strong value and educational quality is to show it as exercising thought leadership. That is the essence of a different new university model.

Unlike the authors of this report, I don’t think there is an avalanche coming that is materially different from past changes, in the sense that fairly significant change has been a feature of higher education for the past four decades or more. I also suspect that some of the current ‘radical’ moves, including many of the MOOCs (a name that increasingly irritates me), will eventually flop because they lack a business case and because the pedagogy has not been as well thought out as some may think. But I do believe that there is scope for a radical new university model that can challenge the traditional elite. That is the quest I would like to be on.”

 

It is also noteworthy the number of times that Thomas Friedman  – famous for the golden arches theory of conflict prevention – is referenced in the essay, an interesting choice of writer to be used by a left leaning thinktank.