Surviving Disruptive Technologies

Posted on by

As part of my hands on investigation of MOOCs, I’m due to start a new course on Surviving Disruptive Technologies. This one is provided by Hank Lucas of University of Maryland.

The first lecture is available on YouTube.

Hopefully what I might learn in this course, which is a more traditional MOOC than edcmooc, will provide some useful insight into the impact of MOOCs on higher education as a business, and how we at Staffordshire could deal with this new technology.

The survival model considers the dilemma for the  incumbent facing a disruptive change from an innovation:

  • Denial
  • History
  • Resistance to Change
  • MInd Set
  • Brand
  • Sunk Costs
  • Profitabilitgy
  • Lack of Imagination

(Interesting to reflect that my view of MOOCs might be classified under these headings.)

Based on this, the organisation has to choose how to survive:

  • Change business model to accommodate competition and new opportunities
  • Abandion existing buisines model and adopt a new one
  • Failure – merger, buyout, liquidate

As I go through the course, I’ll post my thoughts and experiences.

wordcloud

My Latest on MOOCs

Posted on by

I’ve recently had a few weeks away from the University, and decided to use part of that time constructively. SO despite my previous protestations and antipathy, I decided to enrol on a MOOC offered by Coursera. The course I took was run by University of Edinburgh, on E-Learning and Digital Cultures.

I may have got lucky here -the topic is one that both interested and challenged me, but it would appear that the pedagogy used was very different from many other online course. In general  the approach seems to be weekly video lectures, supported by online tests and readings with a discussion forum – ie still very instructor led. The edcmooc (as we came to all it) was much more learner centred.

An interesting blog on the pedagogy used, in comparison with most courses is here.

The 4 weeks were split into topics of Looking to the Past, Looking to the Future, Reasserting the human and Redefining the Human. In each week a number of YouTube or Vimeo clips were offered as a starting point, together with recommended core and advanced readings, and reading specific to technology in education  There was a huge amount of interaction between the really engaged students through the discussion forums, Twitter  Google hangouts and Facebook. Assessment was leaner generated within quite wide bounds and peer assessed.

So was it all good news………….er, no.

I still can’t see how MOOCs are able to provide the utopian solution proposed by some view points  in this particular course – I sill see the impact of a widening digital divide between the haves and have nots, and the danger that for all our liberal intentions of using MOOCs to provide accessible  information and education to everyone  what we might fail to do is provide the education support needed. To be successful in the course that I took, you need to be a reasonably switched on, committed and connected learner. The MOOC can provide free education for someone like me, but I still don’t yet see how it replaces on campus or other forms of study, especially for new HE learners who need support.

 

Leadership in higher education: 14 pieces of food for thought

Posted on by

A useful little article from the Guardian HE network on some leadership tips.

There’s nothing here that might not already have been covered in LFHE courses, or in our own Leading for Success programme.

The article usefully concludes with a summary of desirable leadership qualities:

“Humility, competence, ability to simultaneously ‘own’ issues/stories and still give credit to those who did the hard work. Political skill, both internally and externally, is good . Never losing sight of the bigger picture, the ability to think and act strategically, compassion and a sense of humour”

Venture Capital and MOOCs

Posted on by

In “Venture Capital’s Massive, Terrible Idea For The Future Of College“, Maria Bustillos highlights some of the more interesting and less sensational issues around MOOCs.

She includes reference to a debate between” Aaron Bady and Clay Shirky who had an exchange recently on Inside Higher Ed that sheds light on the current thinking regarding MOOCs among academics.

“The two represent a certain polarity within the academy. Bady, known on Twitter and in the blogosphere aszunguzungu, is a Ph.D. student in African literature at UC Berkeley, where he teaches; he’s also a well-known writer on politics and culture. For all the edginess of his style and his high profile on social media, Bady is a newly-minted prof in the classic mold: a scholar largely concerned with learning (and teaching) from the past. Shirky, though he has taught at NYU for over a decade, is a hypermodern public intellectual and author, a mandarin of the Internet, focused on the future.”

The views of these two well know protagonists are expounded, together with an indication of where they agree. A useful diversion is provided of Richard Feynman teaching polarisation of light – always going to appeal to a physical scientist.

But in Maria’s concluding comments, we see:

“MOOCs are an essentially authoritarian structure; a one-way process in which the student is a passive recipient required to do nothing except “learn.” What he “learns” is only useful if it results in direct, measurable economic production. (Hence, for example, a degree in literature has an economic value of zero.) As a convenient by-product, the purveyors of this “education” can be “incentivized” by the profit motive. The invisible hand at work once again.

Or we can look at education as an interactive process whereby the job of the teacher is to encourage the student to think, thereby introducing him to an adult world in which he may devise a contributon of his own making.”

 

“Let’s put ourselves in the undergraduate student’s position. Someone eighteen years old, embarking on an academic career, might well ask: Will this world welcome me, welcome my potential abilities? Or am I being trained for a life on a hamster wheel? Is my value simply the value of a hamster that can run, a bioform for the Matrix to plug into and extract my essence for the benefit of a larger machine? Is this world full of possibilities, is it asking me to contribute, welcoming my contribution, valuing me for the things known and unknown that I may one day be able to contribute? Or am I being wronged from the start, treated as a “customer,” which all too often means, alas, someone to fleece?

Is the world full of smart and welcoming adults who are interested in what I have to say, encouraging me to work hard and learn and try things, or is it full of thieves and charlatans who are out to rip me off and saddle me with debt and enslave me before I even get a chance to start my adult life??

Let’s consider this from the educator’s point of view, as well. Doesn’t the quality of a culture rely in part on a deep, dynamic interaction between those who are adults now, and those who will be soon?”

The Week University (As We Know It) Ended – or more on MOOCs

Posted on by

The Week University (As We Know It) Ended was published in the Huffington Post, and is one of the most florid tub-thumping articles for MOOCs I have yet read.

Don Tapscott, reporting from Davos, writes:

“At one session here at Davos, the presidents of Harvard, Stanford and MIT all readily acknowledged that the experiments in new models of online learning will soon radically disrupt higher learning.

One expert suggested many universities are facing the early days of bankruptcy. Another predicted there may only be 10 universities that survive this transition.”

Wow. Just 10 universities.

Mind you  in the same article he refers to Sebastian Thrun ” Google vice-president. He led the team that developed the Google self-driving cars that have circled the globe taking pictures of streetscapes for its Street View service.”.

Google has developed a self driving car. Fact. Google have produced streetscapes using Street View. fact. Google HAVE NOT used self driving cars to photograph streetscapes. This is poorly researched journalistic hyperbole.

Maybe the rest of his article should be treated with a suitably large pinch of salt.

 

The Gender Gap at Universities

Posted on by

More from the Guardian Datablog

This time the table below shows student numbers in 2010-11, by gender, and sorted in order, of institutions with the highest percentage of male students.

Nationally 55% of undergraduates are female, and the trend is for the number of female students to continue to increase.

Number and proportion of students at higher education institutions, by gender 2010-11
Institution % female full-time undergraduates % male full-time undergraduates
1 Leeds College of Music 21.4 77.9
2 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 34.0 66.1
3 Loughborough University 38.0 62.0
4 Swansea Metropolitan University 41.2 59.0
5 Heriot-Watt University 41.3 58.7
6 Ravensbourne 42.9 57.1
7 Southampton Solent University 43.9 56.1
8 The University of Bath 43.9 56.1
9 The University of Buckingham 44.4 55.6
10 Staffordshire University 44.5 55.4
11 Scottish Agricultural College 44.2 55.2
12 The University of Portsmouth 45.2 54.8
13 Birkbeck College(#9) 45.2 54.8
14 Heythrop College(#9) 45.7 54.3
15 The University of Oxford 45.8 54.2
16 Brunel University 46.1 53.9
17 Royal Northern College of Music 47.5 53.5
18 The Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts 46.7 53.3
19 The University of Cambridge(#12) 46.9 53.1
20 Royal Agricultural College 47.7 52.9
22 Aston University 47.2 52.8
23 The University of Bolton 47.3 52.7
24 The University of Warwick 47.6 52.4
25 Aberystwyth University 48.0 52.0
26 University of Abertay Dundee 48.3 51.7
27 Coventry University 48.4 51.6
28 Royal Academy of Music(#9) 49.3 50.7
29 Royal College of Music 49.3 50.7
30 The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 49.3 50.7
32 Harper Adams University College 49.1 50.6
33 The University of Sheffield 49.8 50.2
34 University of Glamorgan 50.0 50.0
35 Guildhall School of Music and Drama 50.0 50.0
36 The Open University 50.0 50.0
37 London School of Economics and Political Science(#9) 50.3 49.7
38 University College London(#9) 50.7 49.3
39 The University of Strathclyde 50.9 49.1
40 Swansea University 51.0 49.0
41 Leeds Metropolitan University 51.3 48.7
42 The University of Leicester 51.5 48.5
43 University of Durham 51.5 48.5
44 Kingston University 51.9 48.1
45 Queen Mary and Westfield College(#9) 51.8 48.1
46 The University of Hull 51.9 48.1
47 The University of Bristol 52.1 47.9
48 The University of Bradford 52.3 47.6
49 Rose Bruford College 52.5 47.5
50 Liverpool John Moores University 52.7 47.3
51 The University of Lancaster 52.7 47.3
52 The University of Huddersfield 52.8 47.2
53 The University of Plymouth 53.1 46.9
54 The University of Liverpool 53.1 46.9
55 University of Hertfordshire 53.2 46.8
56 The University of Salford 53.2 46.8
57 The University of Exeter 53.2 46.8
58 The University of Manchester 53.3 46.7
59 University of Wales Trinity Saint David(#7)(#8) 53.3 46.7
60 The University of Southampton 53.4 46.6
61 Bournemouth University 53.4 46.6
62 The University of Kent 53.4 46.6
63 The University of Aberdeen 53.5 46.5
64 The University of Essex 53.5 46.5
65 The University of York 53.5 46.5
66 The University of Reading 53.6 46.4
67 The University of East London 53.6 46.4
68 Teesside University(#8) 53.8 46.2
69 University of Derby 54.0 46.0
72 The Nottingham Trent University 54.0 46.0
73 University of the West of England, Bristol 54.1 45.9
74 Glynd?r University 54.0 45.8
76 The University of Sunderland 54.4 45.6
77 University of the Highlands and Islands(#8) 54.4 45.6
78 The University of Greenwich 54.8 45.2
79 Sheffield Hallam University 54.8 45.2
80 The University of Wales, Newport 55.0 45.0
81 The University of Northumbria at Newcastle 55.1 44.9
82 Total UK 50.9 49.1
83 The University of Sussex 55.1 44.9
84 Royal Conservatoire of Scotland(#8) 55.2 44.8
85 Oxford Brookes University 55.3 44.7
86 The University of Birmingham 55.3 44.7
87 The University of Nottingham 55.4 44.6
88 Edinburgh Napier University 55.5 44.5
89 The University of Edinburgh 55.7 44.3
90 The University of Keele 55.9 44.1
91 Cardiff Metropolitan University(#8) 56.0 44.1
92 The Manchester Metropolitan University 56.1 43.9
93 The University of Westminster 56.2 43.8
94 The University of Glasgow 56.2 43.8
95 De Montfort University 56.3 43.7
96 The University of Central Lancashire 56.4 43.6
97 The University of Brighton 56.4 43.6
98 The University of East Anglia 56.4 43.6
99 Bangor University 56.5 43.5
101 The Queen’s University of Belfast 56.5 43.5
102 The City University 56.9 43.1
103 Buckinghamshire New University 57.0 43.0
104 London Metropolitan University 57.0 43.0
105 University of Ulster 57.1 42.9
106 London South Bank University 57.2 42.8
107 Cardiff University 57.6 42.4
108 University College Falmouth 57.6 42.4
109 The University of Wolverhampton 57.8 42.2
110 Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance 57.8 42.2
111 The University of Surrey 57.8 42.2
112 The University of St Andrews 57.9 42.1
113 University of Gloucestershire 58.0 42.0
114 The University of Lincoln 58.3 41.7
115 The University of Leeds 58.3 41.7
116 St George’s Hospital Medical School(#9) 58.6 41.4
117 Royal Holloway and Bedford New College(#9) 58.8 41.2
118 The University of West London(#8) 59.2 40.8
119 Conservatoire for Dance and Drama 59.2 40.8
120 The University of Chichester 59.5 40.5
121 Norwich University College of the Arts 59.5 40.5
122 St Mary’s University College, Twickenham 59.8 40.2
123 University of Bedfordshire 60.2 39.8
124 Middlesex University 60.2 39.8
125 The University of the West of Scotland 60.8 39.2
126 The School of Oriental and African Studies(#9) 60.8 39.2
127 King’s College London(#9) 61.0 39.0
128 Central School of Speech and Drama(#9) 61.2 38.8
129 Anglia Ruskin University 61.9 38.1
130 The University of Worcester 62.2 37.8
131 Glasgow Caledonian University 62.3 37.7
132 University College Plymouth St Mark and St John 62.2 37.6
133 The University of Dundee 62.6 37.4
134 Birmingham City University 62.8 37.2
135 The University of Stirling 62.9 37.1
136 The Arts University College at Bournemouth 63.0 37.0
137 University College Birmingham 63.9 36.1
138 The Robert Gordon University 64.0 36.0
139 Edinburgh College of Art 64.6 35.8
140 Goldsmiths College(#9) 64.3 35.7
141 Canterbury Christ Church University 64.4 35.6
142 Glasgow School of Art 64.5 35.5
143 Writtle College 64.2 35.2
144 The University of Northampton 64.9 35.1
145 University for the Creative Arts 65.5 34.6
146 Leeds Trinity University College 65.5 34.5
147 The School of Pharmacy(#9) 67.1 32.9
148 York St John University 67.2 32.8
149 Edge Hill University 67.4 32.6
150 Bath Spa University 67.5 32.5
151 The University of Winchester 67.8 32.2
152 University of Chester 67.9 32.1
153 University of Cumbria 69.2 30.8
154 St Mary’s University College 70.9 29.1
155 University Campus Suffolk 71.5 28.5
156 University of the Arts, London 72.5 27.5
157 Liverpool Hope University 73.3 26.8
158 Roehampton University 74.6 25.4
159 Newman University College 74.6 25.2
160 Stranmillis University College 77.4 22.6
163 The Royal Veterinary College(#9) 79.2 20.8
164 Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh 79.5 20.5
165 Courtauld Institute of Art(#9) 83.3 20.0
166 Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln 80.2 19.8
Institute of Education(#9) 85.7 10.7

 

The Gender Gap at Universities – what students choose to study

Posted on by

Published on the Guardian datablog site today, some data about gender of students, the subjects that they study and their attainment .

The table below shows the changes in student numbers over the last 5 years, both by gender and total number of students

Interesting points? The only subject areas to show overall decline are computer science and combined awards. the latter can be explained by the he move fo so many institutions towards a tighter more managed portfolio of awards. The former is a worry – we know that there is a shortage of well qualified computer scientists, and we have the very real problem of working with schools to get young people to recognise what the subject is  actually about (not ICT!)

Higher education qualifications obtained by students (postgrad and undergrad) in the UK by gender and subject area, 2011/12
Number of female students Number of male students Total students % female % male % change in female students from 2006-07/ 2011-12 % change in male students from 2006-07/ 2011-12 % change in students from 2006-07/ 2011-12
Medicine & dentistry 10650 7555 18200 58.5 41.5 31.7 28.6 30.4
Subjects allied to medicine 68470 17280 85750 79.8 20.2 -2.4 21.7 1.6
Biological sciences 34450 20970 55420 62.2 37.8 23.5 38.8 28.9
Veterinary science 875 255 1135 77.1 22.5 52.2 -3.8 35.1
Agriculture & related subjects 3635 2255 5885 61.8 38.3 24.7 22.9 23.9
Physical sciences 11110 15100 26210 42.4 57.6 18.6 27.5 23.6
Mathematical sciences 4720 6765 11485 41.1 58.9 38.6 25.9 30.8
Computer science 5750 24765 30520 18.8 81.1 -11.1 -0.2 -2.4
Engineering & technology 8595 42085 50680 17.0 83.0 36.0 30.3 31.2
Architecture, building & planning 7340 14405 21745 33.8 66.2 30.8 27.1 28.4
Total – Science subject areas 155585 151440 307025 50.7 49.3 10.5 23.2 16.4
Social studies 46255 27485 73740 62.7 37.3 22.7 21.1 22.1
Law 19585 13480 33065 59.2 40.8 8.0 10.5 9.0
Business & administrative studies 69655 70370 140020 49.7 50.3 41.8 45.0 43.3
Mass communications & documentation 11815 8090 19905 59.4 40.6 27.9 33.4 30.1
Languages 25345 11495 36845 68.8 31.2 14.8 22.7 17.2
Historical & philosophical studies 15000 13170 28170 53.2 46.8 8.3 15.5 11.6
Creative arts & design 37755 23535 61285 61.6 38.4 32.2 30.5 31.5
Education 61430 18915 80340 76.5 23.5 13.7 3.8 11.2
Combined 4100 2705 6810 60.2 39.7 -14.0 -17.4 -15.4

This week’s news on MOOCs

Posted on by

And still MOOCs are the dish of the day, in meetings around HEIs, and in the pages of the Higher.

I have to confess to having decided which side of the fence I sit on (although I might be persuaded to change) – MOOCs may  look great, but they are not for every University to pursue, and they won’t sound the death knell for every University, despite Clay Shirky saying this is the Naptster moment for higher education. Napster changed the music industry  but it didn’t kill it – people still go out to buy the music experiences they need. And these aren’t just digital downloads – a live gig is still pretty important!

Anyway, onto this week’s coverage.

Firstly the VC of Cambridge warns of massive threat posed by MOOCs. saying that ” less prestigious universities that focused on teaching rather than research could struggle in the face of new online courses. For those in the knowledge-transfer system, there are troubled times ahead.”. However, ” online courses did not pose a threat to Cambridge because they could not replicate the debate and discussion central to the university’s tutorial system”. So that’s alright then. Of course, MOOCs also won’t be able to replace what we do in our studios, in our labs, our workshops, our seminar sessions, and yes – in our personal tutorials. If we are smart, what we will do is exploit the existing digital resources out there, and base our proposition on the support we give to students, and the importance of the social aspects of learning.

In the same week in the Higher, “Online study certificates go on sale, but Coursera’s Andrew Ng tells Chris Parr they won’t match traditional degrees“. Coursera has started to charge for accreditation of completion of some of its online courses, but one of the founders of the company recognises that this  will never be as valuable as the currency of a traditional degree from a prestigious university. He does point out the benefit to existing graduates of using MOOCs to top up and refresh knowledge, and to receive certification that have done so.

Leadership in Higher Education – a new publication

Posted on by

An old friend and onetime colleague of mine who publishes a popular blog has written about a recent Leadership Foundation publication on “What do we know about leadership in higher education.”

Dr Greatrix writes that “We seem to be clutching at straws in trying to establish whether there is any evidence for leadership benefiting universities in terms of their core activities:

Evidence of the impact of leadership on the extent and quality of research, learning and enterprise is rather slim.

Moreover, university staff inevitably have contrasting views on what effectiveness means, what its characteristics are and indeed whether individuals can even be described in this way:

What works in one context will not necessarily work ?in another, and equally may be judged as effective? and ineffective in the same context. As in the wider literature, the research generates lists of characteristics ?of effective leaders that are somewhat idealised and apolitical. Oppositional narratives underpin estimates of effectiveness; a rational narrative stresses data-driven, command and control, while an alternative prizes an open- ended and fluid creation of space in which autonomy can flourish. Effectiveness is currently related to individuals, but might be more usefully applied to units.”

This might all be a little depressing, particularly for universities who have invested significant amounts of time and money in leadership development for their senior staff. Personally  I find the short mantra of Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones (authors of “Why Should Anyone be Led by You”) a useful way of viewing leadership – Be Yourself, More, With Skill.

 

 

 

More on BME Attainment

Posted on by

One of the reasons I look at this is because I am tasked with trying to increase the number of “good” degrees, ie 1sts and 2(i)s that we award.

It is obvious that if certain groups of students are less successful than others, then we need to understand why, and in so doing make sure that that all of our students have the same opportunities to succeed.

The Higher (24th January 2013) in an article “Black students reluctant to seek aid”, suggests that a reason for lower attainment might be because of a reluctance to seek help from lecturers. the suggestion is that unversities need to be more proactive in ensuring that black students access the academic support on offer.

 

In an era of increasing class sizes, this will be a challenge – if we can develop personal tutoring systems or encourage enough small group teaching  with formative feedback opportunities, we may be better placed  to identify when any of our students need extra support.

More details of the research carried out by Jacqueline Stevenson of Leeds Met can be downloaded from here.