Archive

Tag Archives: higher education

A discussion on the promises and challenges of technology for educational change

02/20/2012
Higher Education
2 Comments

The last blog post stirred some good conversations and feedback from scholars and friends from Australia and abroad. Grateful for their feedback and opinions, I had the idea to record one of these conversations. Therefore, Mr. Tom Kerr posted some questions in a recorded interview and you are invited to see it here and send your opinions and reflections.

One point of justified criticism is that I fail to offer here on my random posts clues on the alternatives, solutions for our challenges in education. In my defense, I have to mention that I work – too slow – on a new book, focused on imagination, creativity and possible solutions for educational change. In a first attempt to address this problem I have to briefly describe what I consider as first two prerequisites for positive and genuine change in education:

  • It is crucial to have an honest and open debate about the pedagogical advantages of new technologies in education.

Although this seems a truism, lobbying activities disguised as care for students’ learning and engagement, well-being of institutions and teaching staff, constitute already a living part of the unchallenged existence of academia. Tech firms promote often clunky, educationally useless or illusory products (see online solutions for plagiarism) for significant profits. This interested intrusion and well-funded influence stifle a genuine debate about the real advantages, traps, dangers, advantages and – ultimately – students’ interests. The pedagogical value of ICT solutions have to be discussed beyond the naive enthusiasm for fancy educational electronics. If we accept arguments like that educational technology is saving money, with the latest example of iPads replacing textbooks as a more economical solution… then we do not only ignore the real costs involved by these changes, the fast pace of change in technology, but – most important – a consistent body of research on learning and pedagogical solutions. It is important to have a wider, more diverse, consistent and courageous debate on what is genuine and positive change and innovation in education.

  • A real change in education requires imagination, innovation, creativity and interdisciplinary research as a vital component of thinking about learning and teaching in 21st century.

Imagine a discussion about the use of new technologies in education where moral philosophers, specialists in technology, scholars specialized in education, engineers and university administrators, teachers and researchers can openly debate various aspects involved in the practice of learning and teaching. Even more, imagine in this mix of teaching, innovation and research the perspective of rethinking education looking at the aims, not various (technological) tools, taking democratic citizenship, reasoning, nurturing imagination, curiosity, critical thinking, creativity and the thirst for knowledge, as paramount aims, not only as political statements designed to mask a neoliberal agenda guided only by immediate profit. Thinking about these possibilities may be more important for the future than it seems now and I argue that these perspectives deserve more consideration if we think about change and “disruptive innovation” in education.

Some unseen sides of “disruptive innovation of the higher education”

01/31/2012
Higher Education
Leave a comment

 

In a recent article (with a surprisingly extensive coverage in the media), Jeff Selingo starts continues a discussion about recent trends in higher education with the promising sentence: “The “disruption” of the higher-ed market is a popular refrain these days.” The expectation for a serious analysis of the recent mantra in higher education is fueled when he continues in the same note: “What exactly those innovations will look like remains a matter of debate.” Unfortunately, the “matter of debate” is closed when we read realize that we have to read again an article to praise the digital revolution and some old promises:  “a potential future of higher ed that’s more collaborative, social, virtual, and peer-to-peer—and where introductory courses are commodities offered free or close to free.“ This article is very interesting for being not only amazingly present on influential publications (eg. Chronicle of Higher Education or The Huffington Post), but for its capacity to coagulate some concerning slogans able just to reveal some blurred sides of this promise of “disruptive innovation”. There is no point to stop here to scrutinize the semantics of “disruptive innovation” as a label attached to new technologies in education. The fact is that new technologies in education are presented as the solution for an educational revolution for at least two decades and no “disruptions” are yet recorded (if we understand disruption as something able to drastically alter or destroy the structure of [something]). It is more important to have a look at some important, but shadowed parts touched by this “popular refrain”.

It is important to note that the idea to reject or ignore the importance of new technologies in education is not only naïve, but unrealistic. Facebook and Twitter, e-books and e-textbooks, apps and computer/online games, LMS options and online education already have a tremendous impact on the way we learn and have the potential to expand as never before the way we learn and teach. This blog post starts with the hope that expressing some concerns about what looks to be the miraculous solution is not interpreted as a conservative rejection of Internet as a magical source of knowledge and open access or the educational potential of some new technologies. It is just a call for a more in-depth analysis of some implications before we relax thinking that the solution was finally found for most important problems confronting now our universities. It is also a challenge to look if the promise to revolutionize education with these tools presented as solutions is not just another utopian project linked with some perilous effects.

There are too many aspects of learning overlooked by the increasing chorus chanting what Selingo calls to be the “popular refrain”. In Finland – with its impressive results in education nowadays – some schools reported that sometimes students’ interest concentrated on computer instead of the assimilation of content. I admit to the guilt to believe that we have to assimilate a bit more that pop songs in our memory if we want to have creative and flexible minds able to adapt and productively work in the knowledge economy. However, being confused by software and losing interest on content in favor of a gadget may be a minor thing to fix, but brings the interesting example of “disruptive educational reform and innovation” in this country. In 1970s, Finland had an underperforming education system, a somehow primitive agrarian economy based on chopping trees and selling them as brute wood – obviously, not a long-term solution for a country with very limited resources. The change came with an impressive reform in preparation and selection of future teachers. Education for all, every teacher immersed in intensive preparation (all have at least a masters degree now) and strict selection. The other important ingredient: an impressive social esteem for the teaching profession and it all turned to be keys in the Finnish innovation’s success. There is an important lesson here for a genuine revolution in education: the success came not by increasing the control and punishments, standardization and numbers of tests, not with a massive investment on software, tablets and computers, but by a genuine focus on quality, selection and social esteem for this difficult job. The focus on lowering costs and increasing immediate profits was overcome by a long-term vision for results – this proves to be now a wise decision. In Finland only one out of every 10 people who apply to become teachers will ultimately make it to the classroom – competition is very high because in this country you can be proud for having this respectable and beautiful profession. Results show that students see this and serious benefits came with this form of “disruptive innovation”.

It may be argued that we live different times and things are different now for our universities, but there are no reasons to claim that the current focus on cutting costs and looking at knowledge and teaching staff just as “commodities” is sustainable for the knowledge economy. There is a different type of change happening now in universities: focus on commoditization, driving down cost and increasing profits (and number of for-profit universities), the syndrome dubbed as “cash cow disease” ravaging universities and what was so well and worryingly documented in “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses” (University of Chicago Press, 2011) – that we are losing student learning at an alarming pace. This book is providing extensive research data to sustain the argument that the attributes we consider to be the pillars of higher learning – such as critical thinking, writing skills, complex reasoning and acquisition of academic knowledge – are not being achieved at institutions of higher education. There seems to be an astonishing lack of vision and concern for the future, a twisted and simplistic understanding of the term “sustainability” with implications for the future of our culture, civic values and democracy. This part of “disruptive innovation” is not following the popular refrain and it seems as being completely left out of the song.

There is also the recent report on e-schools in Ohio (Ohio’S E-Schools: Funding Failure; Coddling Contributors). The report reveals appalling results of these innovative e-schools able to attract an increasing number of students: “e-schools have grown significantly in enrollment since their inception in the 2000-2001 school year when the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) enrolled nearly 2,200 students. Since then, enrollment in E-schools has grown about twice as fast as enrollment in brick and mortar charter schools”. However, we find here some concerning results associated with this indubitable popularity:

“23 E-schools rated by the Ohio Department of Education for the 2009-2010 school year, only three rated “effective” or better on the state report card. In other words, only 8 percent of all E-School enrolled children are in schools that rate B or better. By contrast, more than 75 percent of traditional public school students attend school in buildings rated B or better. In short, children are nearly 10 times more likely to receive an “effective” education in traditional public school than they are in Eschools.”

I imagine how some may read this with the reaction of that biologist looking for the first time in his life at a giraffe shaking his head in disbelief while repeating “This animal doesn’t exist!”. Sometimes it seems that common sense of some simple facts such as that popularity is not equal with efficiency and substance or that knowledge is not equal with web-surfing was lost in the genuine euphoria of seeing “disruptive innovation” at work. The re is a possibility to see online learning is passing the state of lab experiments and isolated showcases of prestigious universities and is applied more generally as a panacea for old problems approached with the same old paradigm… it may lead to the same old appalling results. This is one concern: massification of online solutions can just replicate and intensify current problems if we do not rethink our current educational paradigms.

The other foggy side of disruptive innovation in higher education is about the promise: it is even more unclear how technology will change other than opening access (we agree here for the sake of saving readers’ time to ignore the complex facets of digital divide and increasing debts of students choosing online courses/universities), increasing profits (this is already happening) and making “introductory courses [as] commodities offered free or close to free”. Where is the increasing accent on cultivating innovation and creativity for students, attributes and qualities that are vital for individuals and societies in the knowledge economy? To claim that the simple use of new and innovative products is making students innovative and creative is like claiming that a pair of Air Jordan Shoes makes you a unique athlete. So where is this part? It may be good to consider also data of recent research showing how we learn differently in online environments with a very interesting impact on memory (see here “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips”). The equation of our cortex reaction to new technologies is far from being solved and it may be important to have a broader look at all these changes before we jump with joy and dull enthusiasm seeing videos posted online while most are just replicating the same old process in a bit more contemporary (and fashionable) form.

There is a genuine change in education starting from new technologies, but it may be not enough. We cannot afford the naïveté to think that our economic, social, ecological and cultural crises can be solved by the simple introduction of learning management systems and access to Internet. This may be just another dangerous bubble – the problem is that recent bubbles come with increasingly dangerous and serious costs for real lives. We have to hope that we will read soon articles embraced by all these powerful media outlets with less enthusiasm and more substance in looking at those obscured faces of “disruptive innovation of higher ed.”

Euro crisis – and what universities can learn from it.

12/05/2011
Higher Education
Leave a comment

Euro-jima

“Everybody knows that the boat is leaking

Everybody knows that the captain lied

Everybody got this broken feeling

Like their father or their dog just died”

Leonard Cohen – Everybody Knows

 

 

Rather than admit the fundamental errors and pitfalls of the system, European Union officials spend their time in the same parallel existence that lead to the current crisis spending a lot of effort in trying to create an alternative history. This is not working and sometimes it seems to be clear that their surprise is genuine. It is important to note that these symptoms are far from being a European problem, more of a common disease of our times. All will be just fine if this nuisance called “reality check” will be not only delayed, but entirely avoidable. The problem of Euro is not the simple utopian project consisting in a common currency for different governments that are going most often in perfect opposite directions, but total disconnection of policies, actions and solutions from realities. The most important: a stubborn refusal to have an honest look in the mirror and a visceral reaction against any heretics. It is still a time when your life is better if you clap your hands in total admiration for the emperor’s clothes. The fast changing situation is unavoidable for all – some will get out richer, some will have to pay the price of their delusions and most will pay a lot for citizenships’ complacency. Many investors in the common currency realize now that Sarkozy and Merkel can agree on all their plans, but after a successful meeting and general enthusiasm the problem is still there. Why?

To give some clues about the possible answer on this it is important to look at the context. I deeply love that part of Europe where you see the passion for culture and style, the amazing history and constant effort to keep alive the focus on the importance of the quality of life above other things, such as profit. I lived most of my life in Europe and – by working with some of the most important European institutions – I also had the chance to take a glimpse into their functioning, but I have to admit that this part I love in the old continent cannot be found there. In these institutions and their populations you find the reality of the other side of Europe, that of coteries, arrogance and prejudice, the underground legacy of endless wars of the past and stupid stereotypes about the “other”. But I have found that the most frightening side of this system was the depth and spread of incompetence and corruption.

Again, it is naive to think that the current crisis is caused only by the European corruption. However, some were a just a bit more honest about their problems and brave to approach them openly. Here is the crucial difference between US and Europe: Europe annihilated (with the notable exception of some singular voices in written media) all forms of structured intellectual resistance against the official narrative. Jurgen Habermas recently wrote about the sense of exasperation so common for decent hard working Europeans from all EU countries: “The European project can no longer continue in elite modus.” It is an elite of corruption and arrogance: few know that in the middle of a tremendous tragedy the greedy and cynical Greek oligarchs invested heavily in – among others – London property market! This elite caused the crisis and they are part of a European cleptocracy uninterested in any other ideal than bringing more money into their bank accounts. The European philosopher is speaking openly about this reality: “I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions.” Nevertheless, European universities do not join the discussion and have little if any influence in the public sphere. Their silence over what is causing now the European tremendous shakes was generalized. The reason of this cultivated mediocrity can be approached only in a different chapter…

Andrew Haldane, executive director at the Bank of England, offers a good perspective on what happened in this crisis. He caused recently some emotion when he labeled most parts of current global finance as being just a global scam:

“…In fact, high pre-crisis returns to banking had a much more mundane explanation. They reflected simply increased risk-taking across the sector. This was not an outward shift in the portfolio possibility set of finance. Instead, it was a traverse up the high-wire of risk and return. This hire-wire act involved, on the asset side, rapid credit expansion, often through the development of poorly understood financial instruments. On the liability side, this ballooning balance sheet was financed using risky leverage, often at short maturities.

In what sense is increased risk-taking by banks a value-added service for the economy at large? In short, it is not.”

Paul Krugman comments on the paragraph presented above that “Haldane argues that finance fooled investors into believing that it had found a way to earn higher returns, whereas all it was really doing was piling on hidden risk. And he suggests that much if not all of the rise in the share of finance in GDP reflected this deception; in effect, Wall Street and the City were con artists extracting huge rents from an unwary public (and eventually dumping much of the cost, when things went bad, on taxpayers).”

It is important to understand that the current crisis – affecting real lives, destroying real families and blurring the hope for a decent future for millions around the world – was caused by greed and corruption, but most importantly by selling illusions to a majority more than happy to believe them. Whistleblowers were ridiculed as lamentable figures obsessed by jeremiads, depicted as egomaniacs interested to draw attention with some apocalyptic scenarios or simply ignored. The simple history of this phenomenon of the last decade can be a fascinating PhD. The public was not unwary, but enchanted and happy to stay delusional. Unfortunately, history shows that this is always a terrible mistake.

Here is where the Europe is now, still unable to understand that the time to be realistic about its institutions is already gone. The armies of bored and well-related EU bureaucrats match their incompetence with cynicism and private interests are just too dense to allow the necessary changes. It is the (missed) time to talk openly about nepotism and mistresses hired as experts, about elites too corrupt to accept a decent dialogue about rights and responsibilities, privileges and abuse. The illusion is still at the core of what is presented to be the solution: to take just one example, where is the strong European debate about the fact that Germany, the new disciplinarian of this dysfunctional family, is breaking EU financial rules more dangerously than Spain? The European Commission estimates for Germany a debt ratio of 81.7% of GDP, significantly higher than Spain’s debt ratio of 69.6 percent. The problem may be more nuanced than this (even if the myth of a state saving in a sea of spenders is too blatantly against reality to be dismissed so easy), but the missing dialogue is the worrying sign. The missing sign here is on itself the sign of incapacity to start seeking a realistic solution. The fact is that Euro is sinking while the orchestra is singing an idyllic song. There is a striking similarity here with the evolution of higher education since WTO included education into tradable services just a decade ago.

I recently heard again in a conference devoted to higher education various scholars unsure about their intellectual identity that “universities must learn from business”. I have to agree – from different positions and very different reasons – that this is the most important call to be followed now by Academia. Universities must look at what happened in the global financial markets in the last years. The lesson for universities is too important to be ignored as this can have a crucial importance for the future of higher education. It is a complex story with huge scams ignored and accepted for increasing profits, with ideological motivations promoted as moral/political choices to mask new sources of easy money, with the blurring of real meanings for important concepts such as “sustainability”, “regulations”, “responsibility” and “accountability”. This ideal world presented to universities as the model for existence by various actors from different schools of business and economics (it is curious why they even exist in universities and not in vocational education altogether – but I digress) is now shaken by irrational feelings, rumors and emotions. Elaborate software and the science of business is clearly replaced in the Euro-drama by logic closer to psychoanalysis than the pure rational structures of mathematical predictions and actuarial studies. For example, when the newspaper La Stampa published just a week ago an article about a possible massive loan from IMF for Italy, the European currency gained significantly and stock markets moved positively until the world heard IMF saying clearly that this was just a rumor. Nothing real caused this increase: no new policies, no increase in industrial productivity or crops, no innovation or scientific breakthrough, no general decision for a more coherent management and less corruption across EU, but a simple rumor changed the value of immense investments. This seems to be not only the most unpredictable, but the most parallel from reality mechanism of our times. This is also the most influential pillar of the current establishment.

This chaotic puzzle of greed and illusions, irrational triggers and imaginary foundations is also the system presented and adopted with great enthusiasm by institutions of education managed now as speculative businesses. We reached the point when tertiary education is happy with this because we cannot imagine a different rationale than what was sold as the panacea for better functioning. Therefore, universities seek more profits as they need more money to invest – very little investments (if any!) are oriented to the quality of teaching, learning and relevant research as this became marginal in the engine of making money and doing “good business”. The pitfall of this model is that what proved to be very dangerous in the almighty financial world is even more dangerous for universities due to the vast implications for the future of society.

Most universities seem to be still oblivious of the fact that the not only the reality around them is changing very fast (this is why you still hear academics delivering ridiculous tirades urging all to “learn from business”), but the perception about their future is changing at tremendous pace. If you look inside academia and read most recent literature produced about the future of universities is easy to find common themes and solutions with a common ideological source: neoliberalism and the “sound business model”. Simplifying, we can read that that universities should resemble ATMs, producing fast, mobile, accessible and easily standardized knowledge units, that these institutions must be modular and learn how to work from shopping malls. Those who teach must be “dynamic” and function as employees in a relation that may make Walmart proud for being the source of such elaborate debates. This model of McDonalds-university is entirely wrong and it is hard to say that it will be a surprising to see this proven faster than expected.

In a recent editorial published by New York Times we read about this change in perception about the future of higher education – the burst of the bubble is not expected, we already talk about its dimension and effects:

“One of the greatest changes is that a college degree is no longer the guarantor of a middle-class existence. Until the early 1970s, less than 11 percent of the adult population graduated from college, and most of them could get a decent job. Today nearly a third have college degrees, and a higher percentage of them graduated from non-elite schools. A bachelor’s degree on its own no longer conveys intelligence and capability.”

In other words, we talk about pure inflation and the same mechanisms of selling illusions. There are many factors causing this: political parties running for votes, ideological positions making the problem of access to higher education painfully simplistic, lack of vision and many others. However, there is no doubt that the most important source is the same perspective of huge profits. This lured universities to believe that if you have the tenacity to chant the same lies they will become facts. The problem is that – similar with the European facade – there are already big cracks. Students leave university with stunning debts and see that their investment is not giving what was advertised. There is the simple explanation that in the current context there is a shortage of jobs and this is why we have graduates in underpaid positions.  This explanation is simply not true! In US, where the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently announced in a quarterly report that it had significantly undercounted student loans and now estimates the current total of outstanding loans at $845 billion, not $550 billion, ManpowerGroup’s annual 2011 Talent Shortage Survey shows that about 52 percent of U.S. employers reported difficulty filling jobs (and 54% in Australia). I take most of these global rankings at the best as compass points rather than clear pictures – but it is important to remember that this is happening in the context of high unemployment. According to this global survey, employers see a lack of skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, and agility that are critical to generate productivity and innovation. Just to put things in context we have to remember here the recent case of that university professor who was fired from Utah Valley University for “asking students even when they didn’t raised their hands”. Students’ complaints reveal that this professor asked students to work in teams; according to court documents, he was following the Socratic teaching style, asking questions to stimulate discussions. Same court documents record that students did not liked this: students did not want to work in teams and did not want the professor to ask questions: “They wanted him to lecture”. There are many other similar cases reaching courts and we can guess how many others are not reported. It may be a problem when entertaining in class is replaced with genuine critical thinking and is getting some out of the “comfort zone”. Consistent research also shows a constant decrease of time devoted to study and a constant increase in grades – here is another “mystery” of tertiary education. Please do not blame students – the lie about what education is all about is not their creation.

The rhetoric about “critical thinking” is still there and we still count “students’ satisfaction”, which is seen as an inalienable right to be entertained and comfortable. The pressure to pass students even if they are functional illiterates is already well documented and seems to be natural when we think that asking students to… learn may result in less profit. Universities report record numbers of graduates and most governments think that cutting funding for universities is a profitable decision as long as the pressure is to take more students able to bring money into the system. These students take loans and in time banks see these loans as unprofitable as more and more victims of this system discover that being entertained is not giving you knowledge, skills and – ultimately – a job! It is important to understand that many brilliant students do not take a job because they do not know the “right people” and some simply have no idea about what happened during university studies (other than “fun”). However, the effect is the same: the loan cannot be payed. This story of “toxic loans” promoted to sell illusions is very familiar for anyone interested to understand the roots of current financial crisis.

The artificial increase of supply (of graduates and diplomas) brings a fast drop in value and this is just the first effect. It may be the least important as well. Here we go back to our lesson from Europe: floating above reality works well for a while, but once those cracks ruin the polished facade it is impossible to hide from what plebeians simply call “a reality check”.