Futuristic topics are highly challenging to consider, weigh, and assess. The authors of these types of writings typically work to expose how the patterns of predecessor tools and trends will inform the tools and trends of the future. Deeply woven into this issue are the social and cultural implications of these innovations to the places in which they are being developed, along with the growing disparities between western technologies and their applications when compared to rural and underdeveloped parts of the world such as Asia or Africa. Even though the readings from this week all pertained to the future of higher education settings (which I don’t plan to be a part of for some time after graduating this spring), they still spark a number of questions:
- Which trends or predictions have the potential to stick?
- Can maker education fit in outside of the science (I.e in the arts) in higher education?
- Is ten years enough to close the massive gap that still exists in creating blended learning models in educational settings, higher ed or otherwise?
- Do MOOCs represent the open-ended and personalized spirit of learning that Alexander (2014) alludes to in higher education institutions of the future?
- Does professional development need to become more self-directed and personalized like Alexander’s (2014) discussion of our future students? Should instructors all have access to PD mentors as students would have academic mentors for personalization?
- Can these writings in and of themselves work to shape the future – do they plant ideas – for people who are exposed to them, spurring them into action?
MOOCs have always been a strange and unexplored aspect of the online world for me. I was always immersed in social media collaboration and networking with other educators; I never struck out to pursue learning in these seemingly more formal settings. To be honest, I always assumed that the schools that offered them actually utilized them in admissions and crediting processes so I was disappointed to read that this is not the case (Bates, 2014). Upon reading further, it seems that the structure of the courses is indeed there, but they frequently lack the support and feedback that is indicative of a tuition-paid university course.
ETEC 565A in particular has had me focus increasingly on online learning and pedagogical designs and how they differ from in-person or blended approaches. When considering the speed at which education is taking up these initiatives (hint: it feels much more slow than these readings suggest), I especially notice the social and political aspects that are holding us back. Alexander (2014) mentions the “decline of tenure,” for example, MOOCs suggest an openness that provides access to high-class educational content with nominal fees, yet we see instructors continuing to fight for these securities and institutions continuing to fight for standardization and control in educational systems. This occurs not just with universities, but in government too. Yet, even in programs like MET that are somewhat standardized, we all seem to hold a different degree depending on our experiences in the program: no two students are going to experience it in the same way as the other.
I believe that a major reason that educational social pressure against personalization and digital solutions is because the teacher/instructor/school has always been the source of information. Since we are no longer, it has disrupted traditional teaching and learning and has trickled down into the social and political hierarchies that be. For me, it is Bates (2014) who hits the nail on the head when we consider these issues: “What is needed is information management: how to identify the knowledge you need, how to evaluate it, how to apply it” (Bates, 2014, 5.6.3). We need to reevaluate the knowledge students might need from us as instructors and how we provide access and organization of that knowledge so that they can apply it. The consistent answer that I’ve seen is that this should come in the form of support, feedback, and guidance, with increased onus on the learner rather than the instructor.
References
Alexander, B. (2014). Higher education in 2014: Glimpsing the future. Educause Review, 4(5). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/higher-education-2024-glimpsing-future?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email+marketing&utm_campaign=EDUCAUSE
Bates, T. (2014). MOOCs. In Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/chapter-7-moocs/ (Chapter 5)