More Higher Ed Myths

by

Daniel Lemire, researcher and someone who knows more math than I can imagine, debunks the common knowledge view that you need to go to a quality  university to get a quality education:

More generally, if you want to know how to get really smart, go watch what really smart people do. How does the famous professor learn? Does he spend days in lecture halls listening to some colleague? Nah! I bet you will find him interacting with some of the smartest people in the world every day, and spending a lot of time working in his office, crouched over his desk. My point is that you do not get smart by sitting in lecture halls. You get smarter by working at it. Smartness is not contagious, at least not by physical contact.

I am in the process of writing a proposal for consulting services to help develop an online learning strategy for a university. Daniel’s point  confirms our premise in the proposal that it’s getting easier to connect with knowledge and knowledgeable people, without jumping through what are becoming arbitrary academic hoops.

The Web is making everyone (at least the one billion who are currently connected) only a few clicks away from each other. Add in free Voice over IP, video conferencing, lectures online and YouTube presentations and voilà  – a new platform for learning. It’s time for universities to think about a new role as learning enablers and no longer gatekeepers because the horse (knowledge) has escaped the barn.

Professors criticize French immersion report

by

Diana Hamilton, and Matthew Litvak, both who have taught statistics at the university level, have several criticisms of the recent Croll and Lee Review of French Second Language Programs and Services New Brunswick’s schools. They have set up a blog, as well as a detailed analysis of the flaws:

To summarize, EFI [early French immersion] produces better French speakers, costs less on a per-student basis, and has essentially the same attrition rate as LFI [late French immersion]. The logical choice is to retain EFI. Core French certainly needs to be fixed, but we have found no justification in this document for eliminating EFI in the process. We strongly suggest that the central recommendation of this report not be adopted; it will lead to a reduction in French competence of hundreds of graduates per year, and result in a general lowering of standards. Numerous education experts have stated that EFI is the best program, and based on our analysis, we fully agree.

We feel that many of the legitimate shortcomings in New Brunswick FSL [French as a Second Language] programs that the Commissioners have identified can be addressed more effectively as follows:

  • by providing adequate resources to support a wider range of French-language course options and flexibility in Grades 10-12 in order to reduce early drop-out;
  • by providing adequate support for exceptional children in EFI and LFI classes so that FSL training becomes available to these children;
  • by actively promoting the benefits of learning French and encouraging all students equally.

More platforms

by

platform-alteration.jpg

Photo: Platform alteration by harryharris

Continuing the platform theme from my last post, I’ve come across two relatively new Web content sharing platforms – Scribd and LearnHub. Both allow for easy uploading and sharing of content that you own. Scribd has unlimited space available while LearnHub is free but will be charging a transaction fee in the future for testing and tutoring. Where LearnHub differs is that it is based on an information presentaion/testing/tutoring model, while Scribd just lets you put stuff online. Both have a rating system built in and Scribd so far is a much larger community, with 350,000 registered users.

Check out The History of Tim Horton’s [had to get some Canadian content, didn’t I?] on Scribd or the Cooperative Learning community on LearnHub.

Is this the future of online learning?

Platforms versus Programs

by

Jay Cross discusses an interview with John Hagel at FastForward and sees that a move from programs to platforms is necessary in a web-centric world:

The way out of the squeeze is to move from programs to platforms. He’s not talking about media. Rather, programs are push, content, and structured (as with software). Platforms are frameworks, networks, flexible, and loosely coupled. It won’t be an easy transition; many companies will die along the way. (The lifespan of an S+P company is already down to 15 years, an 80% drop from historical levels.)

Meanwhile, on the FastForward Blog, Rob Paterson shows how Wikipedia and YouTube have greatly surpassed both NPR and PBS in number of viewers. What is interesting is that both Wikipedia and YouTube are platforms, while NPR and PBS have been pushing programs.

I can see the same change happening in education. The successful institutions [if we use that term] in the near future will provide the best collaborative platforms. Those with only programs to offer will be sidelined.

Zero Training

by

Via Green Chameleon, I came across Nathan’s blog post on his project methodology of Clarify, Simplify, Implement – great advice, and so simple. Later in the same post, Nathan gives some more advice that should have anyone in the training business questioning their value proposition:

Zero training

Every user is time poor. They have no interest or time for attending training sessions. Training is the first and biggest hurdle to adoption of your new system and process. While complexity exists and training is required, users can always reject or work around the process with a politically acceptable excuse – “It’s too hard”.

Our aim, through simplification, is to make people’s life easier, reduce the burden on their time and remove all the excuses. The reward is adoption, engagement and relief that that finally it’s been done the way everyone always thought (individually) it should be.

Training is the last resort, and usually the most expensive solution, when all other performance support options won’t work.

Evaluating the evaluators

by

The standard university value proposition is that it’s not just a degree but an opportunity for learning and developing critical thinking. At Ryerson University:

The special mission of Ryerson University is the advancement of applied knowledge and research to address societal need, and the provision of programs of study that provide a balance between theory and application and that prepare students for careers in professional and quasi-professional fields.

However, as noted yesterday, Ryerson has charged a student with academic misconduct for creating a Facebook virtual study hall. Even if the students were passing around “answers” [which it appears they were not], the problem is not with the students.

bas-relief-at-ryerson.jpg

Any institution that claims to support “the advancement of applied research and knowledge“, should not be in the business of asking for “the right answer”. Learning, especially in higher education, should not be about getting the right answer and this case shows the weakness of the university value proposition for our society. Too many universities have taken the easy route and they are as much diploma mills as anything you might find on the back of a pack of matches. The gaping hole in the university teaching model is quite obvious. If the “answer” can be found and passed around, your evaluation system is completely flawed.

Photo of Bas Relief by Elizabeth Lyn Wood at Ryerson (1962) by colros

Students in the driver’s seat

by

Is this the future of education?

For real writers and creators: Love to write, to speak, and/or to make films? Wish there was a class where you could work on your own ideas, your own projects, and learn advanced podcasting, film-making, writing/blogging, social networking? This class is for you. You design your project(s). You develop them however you want them to go. And you get feedback from your teacher on the quality of your writing and other multimedia (radio/podcasting, movie-making, blogging, social networking strategies). If you choose, you can learn to market your project for world attention. It will be yours to continue in coming years, when class is over.

Clay Burell is going to have fun next year and so are a bunch of his students. Some day [soon?] this might not even be an item of interest as it will be the norm. I can also see this model as a better model for online learning for many disciplines than what most courses offer. With less “teaching” and more guidance and feedback, it may even scale up better.

This just in:

Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, Mark Federman reports that Ryerson Polytechnic has charged a student with academic misconduct for creating a Chemistry study group on Facebook [AKA, that evil place where them youngsters hang out]:

In their minds, Ryerson administrators must maintain their control over students and the mode of learning, true to their 17th century pedagogical heritage. Metaphorically, this is Ryerson U’s president, Sheldon Levy, wearing a long, schoolmarm-ish dress, thwacking Avenir over the head with a yardstick in the one-room schoolhouse that is still, lamentably, Ry High.

Self-determination

by

There is almost an arms race quality to the way in which we are trying to save our current education and health care “systems”. I am coming around to the notion that the system is the problem. Much in the same way that The Support Economy diagnoses managerial capitalism as the primary cause of the disconnect between corporations and markets, I am seeing that [Ivan] Illich had it right over 30 years ago – we have seen the enemy, and it is us. Through our large, corporatist systems we have created self-perpetuating monopolies in both health and education.

I wrote this statement in 2004 and I haven’t changed my mind on our need for systemic change. Jon Husband recently reminded me of the book, The Support Economy, which I read several years ago, and his favourite quote:

Psychological self-determination is expressed in three different dimensions. In the first dimension people want to live their lives the way they choose to live it. This is the sense of sanctuary. The second way people express their psychological self-determination is in the widespread desire for voice: we want to be heard and we want our voices to matter. The third way we want our psychological self-determination to be expressed is in our desire to be connected: we want to be part of communities.

Our current corporate, educational and health care systems stand in the way of self-determination. We want to be part of something bigger than ourselves (community) but we also need to have control of our own lives. In our health, our learning and our work; self-determination is the key to resilience. We see this with the successful anomalies in the business world – W.L. Gore; Google; Semco – which allow more self-determination than their competitors.

I asked myself, which system has the best potential to change first? For those who agree that change is necessary, would it be better to concentrate on the creation of new business models and then let education and health care follow suit? I think so. Leadership seems to come from, or at least is deferred to, those who have the money or the means of production. So if you’re reform-minded, perhaps business reform is the most pragmatic avenue for your energies. Change the business models, change the world.

Middle of the Road or the High Road?

by

I was asked this week to do some instructional design work; something I haven’t done for a while. As we discussed the work, and of course the monetary compensation, I confirmed what I had written in So you want to be an eLearning Consultant? for eLearn Magazine.  This Pedagogical Design/Development work will pay within the range I described in the Table of the article. On the other hand, I’ve just finished an evaluation of an LMS and the work figured within the remuneration that I described for Technological work; about five times the rate of the development work.

Of course, you have to balance the compensation with the potential work available in that field. However, if you’re interested in this business as your vocation, and making a decent living, you may wish to consider what end of the spectrum you decide to focus on.

… and then our structures shape us

by

Clay Burell has guest blogger Bill Farren discussing the hidden curriculum of school architectural design. He asks what hidden messages are our schools themselves asking by their inherent design:

  • Did the building’s designers take into consideration its location?
  • Who decided how (if) it should be built?
  • Does the building make an attempt to connect students with their outside world?
  • What does the formal, intentional curriculum teach?
  • How is this formal, intentional curriculum taught?
  • How is the school run?
  • How is security portrayed?
  • What is sold or advertised on campus?

I was reminded of the critical nature of school design this week when I received an invitation to the School Building Expo in Chicago (April 1-3), which I passed on to the Department of Education, considering that they’re hiring a future school infrastructure analyst.

There was an article I read many years ago, but don’t see cited very often, about designing learning environments. It’s Rodney Fulton’s SPATIAL model (1991) [my emphasis added]:

While a body of knowledge does exist that documents the relationships between learning and physical environment, there are problems that need to be resolved before the present level of understanding can be systematically advanced. One problem is that common vocabulary does not exist. Thus, in the literature, concepts are often described with similar but not identical terminology. Conversely, the same terms are used for similar but not exactly the same concepts. But this confusion in vocabulary is only a symptom of the fundamental problem: the lack of a conceptual model that explores relationships of physical environment to learning rather than to behavior in general. Architectural models address built environments, emphasizing both interior and exterior features of building design that allow, encourage, prohibit, or inhibit various behaviors. Psychological models discuss environmental attributes that set conditions for or even control human behavior. Sociological models emphasize the importance of environment in terms of how it facilitates human interactions. By emphasizing individual appreciation of the environment, aesthetic models address the relationship of values to human behavior. Workplace training models, including human factors engineering, emphasize the fit between environment and person and seek out optimal conditions for performance.

Each of these perspectives can add to a global understanding of the learning environment; however, a model that addresses learners in learning environments is a needed first step in refining educational research. The model described here–satisfaction-participation-achievement-transcendent/immanent attributes-authority-layout (SPATIAL)–can serve as a fundamental basis for organizing research designed to identify relationships between and among components of the learning environment and attributes of the learner. Further, this model has potential for weaving together findings from architectural, psychological, sociological, aesthetic, and human factors engineering studies.

In A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan (1967), John Culkin said that, “We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.”

old-school.jpg

Photo by Atelier Teee