“The End of College” is Not Really the END, but The Beginning

“Enrollment in the University of Everywhere will be lifelong, a fundamental aspect of modern living”  — “The End of College”

The End of College by Kevin Carey, 2015, Riverhead Books

The End of College: Creating the future of Learning and the University of Everywhere is not a doomsday book despite the key words in the title “The END”. A more apt title might be “The End of Traditional College”. Its message is how traditional college, with its institution and research-centric paradigm has less to do with student learning and more to do with an admissions process that is out-of-control, institutions that are far-removed from making student learning a priority, and an out-of-date accreditation system focused on the credit-hour. This will change in the next generation. Carey describes how higher education is, and will continue its transformation to the University of Everywhere, driven by student demand and technology innovations.

There is a sliver of doom in Carey’s writing; he warns that institutions that view education technology as a fad, another trend to be waited out, will come to an end. Colleges that remain unchanged today will disappear tomorrow  (pg. 244). Carey’s book echoes the message in Abelard to Apple: The Fate of American Colleges by Richard DeMillo published in the pre-MOOC era (2011). Abelard to Apple is more dire, with an explicit warning for colleges and universities of the ‘middle’ (second tier institutions). According to Demillo the majority of higher education institutions are headed for irrelevance and marginalization unless they take action. Demillo like Carey, wrote that technology is the driver of change, the vehicle for education transformation. Demillo went further, describing how the complexity of the higher education system serves as the most significant barrier to innovation and change. Those that don’t (or won’t) change are destined for demise with one exception—the universities in the ‘ivy league’.  Demillo and Carey are in agreement on this point, that the elite schools will be immune, insulated by power and money.

Carey’s book received sharp criticism. Some critics called Carey’s University of Everywhere a utopia of higher education with its education promises of personalized learning, rigorous coursework where students won’t be able  to ‘coast’, where technology makes education better, not easier (pg. 248). Carey’s University of Everywhere also dismantles the idea of public institutions as the fulcrum of higher education (in United States) by suggesting they serve a different purpose: for research—yes, places for life-long learning experiences and collaboration—also yes, but undergraduate education taught primarily by distracted faculty engaging in research—no.

There is not now and there never will be a substitute for the deliberate practice necessary to gain real expertise. The higher-learning organizations of the future will give students the right kids of hard work to do, and they will recognize that work by awarding credible evidence of accomplishment. But they won’t do students’ work for them. What parents can do is to hep their children build the intellectual and emotional tools they will need for the demanding and rewarding tasks. (pg 248)

Matt Reed, one of the book’s critics, suggests in a blog post at Inside Higher Ed that the mission of public university will be comprised with Carey’s suggested model, to the detriment of society. Audrey Watters agrees, stating in “Techno Fantasies” that Carey’s model is deeply flawed, citing the rise of private entities such as MOOC provider Coursera and Udacity as evidence that online education is flawed and that research supporting the effectiveness of technology-driven learning is “paltry” at best.

But the critics miss Carey’s main point. He is not saying MOOCs will replace higher education or that public universities will be obsolete. Nor is he saying technology is the answer to higher education’s woes. He is saying that there will be a shift in the higher education model in the next generation, that brick and mortar institutions will play a different role and information technology is an important part of achieving education goals, but that the system associated with higher education involving accreditation, delivery, admissions, research, access, and cost associated with education, will change because of technology. Just like in any other industry, like medicine or manufacturing, where technology brings about transformation that leads to improvements in quality and lowered costs.

Carey does discuss MOOCs, in fact he describes his experience taking a MOOC on the edX platform. He also discusses Minerva, a new university based on the elite education-model without walls, and new models of accreditation based on digital learning identities. Carey shares these narratives with readers to emphasize the alternatives to a model of education that has changed little over decades, with few improvements in aspects of quality and accessibility. That’s Carey’s main point—the shift to a University of Everywhere will provide more access to education, improve quality and lower costs because of advancements in technology, and a shift in culture, our values and expectations.

The idea of “admission” to college will become an anachronism, because the University of Everywhere will be open to everyone. It won’t in fact, be single place or institution at all. The next generation of students will not waste their teenage years jostling of spot in a tiny number of elitist schools. Their educational experience will come from dozens of organizations, each specializing in different aspects of human learning. (pg 5)

Conclusion
Educators and parents who are eager to learn about the future and possibilities of higher education will find The End of College: Creating the future of Learning and the University of Everywhere insightful and instructive. The book is even more applicable to those who want to be part of the change for the next generation of learning, the beginning of a new paradigm of learning that literally is everywhere.

• Carey, K. (2015). The end of college: Creating the future of learning and the university of everywhere. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
• DeMillo, R. A. (2011). Abelard to Apple: The fate of American colleges and universities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Need-to-Know News: Universities On Board with Micro Credentials, MOOC Report Highlights Pressing Issues & App Rewards Tech Non-Use

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.

1) Group of Seven Universities Collaborating on ‘Alternative Credentialing’
“The idea is to create an “alternative credentialing process that would provide students with credentials that are much shorter and cheaper than conventional degrees” — David Schejbal, Dean of Continuing Education, Outreach and e-Learning at Wisconsin Extension.

A group of seven universities are in early stages of collaboration on a joint platform that will offer skills assessments, services including tutoring and advising to students online—though the platform’s primary purpose will be to provide ‘alternative credentialing options’. This is significant. It’s the first time a group of brand-name universities (that include Northwestern and Georgia Tech) have formed their own consortium in the micro credentialing market at this scale. Up until now it’s for-profit platforms such as Udacity with their Nano Degrees partnering with corporations such as AT&T, Coursera with their Specializations offered as a ‘pathway to expertise’, and edX (non-profit) with their xSeries programs.

These programs are vocational in nature, with a focused sequence of courses that provide students with a set of skills in a specialty area. This type of credentialing differs significantly from undergraduate education—the undergraduate degree focusing on breadth rather than depth, emphasizing critical thinking with applicability to a range of career pathways. Yet recently there’s been discussion in far-reaching media outlets including the New York Times, that micro credentials are a viable alternative to traditional higher education—“it [nano degree] may finally offer a reasonable shot at harnessing the web to provide effective schooling to the many young Americans for whom college has become a distant, unaffordable dream”.  Even Sebastian Thrun, founder of Udacity was quoted as saying, “It [nano degree] is like a university…built by industry” (2014).

Insight: The fact that micro credentials are viewed as an alternative to or even replacement for an undergraduate or an associate’s degree is concerning. Even more so now with universities coming on board and (potentially) promoting this option as ‘shorter and cheaper than conventional degrees’. Micro credentialing serves a different purpose than undergraduate education, targets a different and expanding student population—working adults looking for professional development and a route to enhance job-related skills. Though there is need for higher education institutions to transform and adapt to the complex challenges the higher education sector is facing, offering a ‘mini-degree’ as a replacement to the rich and diverse education that an undergraduate degree can provide is misguided and deeply troubling.  Alternative learning pathways such as micro-credentials is a positive outcome of digital innovations, yet using it as an alternative to ‘fix’ undergraduate education is not reasonable or responsible.

• Establishment goes alternative, (Inside Higher Ed) Paul Fain, August 14, 2015
• A Smart Way to Skip College in Pursuit of a Job, (NYT) Eduardo Porter, June 14, 2014
• Nano-Degrees as a New Model to Integrate into Higher Ed, (Forbes), January 19, 2015
• Goodbye MOOC, hello microcredentials, Alastair Creelman, August 16, 2005

2)  New MOOC Report Highlights Current Issues
This week UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for higher education released a concise, informative report “MOOCs and Quality: A Review of the Recent Literature” that highlights topical issues with useful, current references.  It’s instructive, informative and provides a summary of key areas of concern specific to MOOCs that are also applicable to higher education including non-completion rates, quality, instructional design, and data use for analysis of student engagement. What’s most instructive are the issues highlighted—it draws out for the reader the most pressing issues worthy of consideration going forward.

As with each new learning innovation, MOOCs present the possibility of new approaches to education, but the promises now need to be evaluated to see what can be delivered in the longer term, on a sustainable basis and with what implications for HEIs and for the assurance of quality  (Creelman et al, 2014).

Insight: Discussions should be moving from MOOCs as disruptors to deeper issues such as how can MOOCs help us improve teaching and learning, reach more students with quality education, and support change within the higher education sector. This report can be a catalyst for such discussions, providing a starting point with its reference list of recent research that provide a foundation for informed discussion.

• MOOCs and Quality: A Review of the Recent Literature, QAA MOOCs Network, Dr. Sarah Hayes, July, 2015

3) New App Gives Points to Students for Not Using Personal Tech Device
A mobile app targeted to high school and college students called ‘Pocket Points’ gives students rewards for not using their phones during class. Students gain points by opening up the application and locking their phone. It works when the school signs on with Pocket Points and sets up the software and the rewards program.  Students can use points to get discounts at local and online businesses—primarily for food. Currently Chico State and Penn State University use the program.

Insight: A unique idea, though I see more potential for this application with younger children, for parents to use with their children ages 9 through 13—helping kids learn how to manage their screen time.

• Pocket Points
• Put Your Phone Away in Class and Earn Free Food, Rewards, Onward State Newsletter, Mindy Szkardnik, January 30, 2015
• US colleges offer free food to students who ignore their phones in class, The Verge, Rick McCormick, February 4, 2015

“Spreadable Media” — How its Relevant to Education

“The media industries understand that culture is becoming more participatory, that the rules are being rewritten and relationships between producers and audiences are in flux.” (page 35)

spreadablemedia.org

I recently read “Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture”.  Its focus (not surprisingly) is social media; how people consume and engage with content via various channels of social media and its effects on business, entertainment and other sectors. It addresses how meaning and value are created from content that is spread; ‘spread’ meaning sharing of content not just between people, but within communities. Content, the authors suggest, is shaped even manipulated throughout the spreading process.

It’s a dense read. The lead author Henry Jenkins, Professor of Communication, Journalism, Cinematic Arts and Education at USC, wrote the book with two digital strategists, Ford and Green. The book aims to “build understanding and conversation among three groups of readers: media scholars, communication professionals, and citizens who actively produce and share media content”. I’d say that there is quite a bit to discuss and not just for those involved in media studies. It’s applicable to education, more so given that social media platforms are used with greater frequency by students and instructors to connect with, consume and create education content.

Several of the book’s sub themes address topics educators and institutions are wrestling with, particularly those offering any form of online education. For instance engagement topic of chapter three—The Value of Media Engagement explores engagement from the perspective of market value, recently a topic of discussion among MOOC providers (Dodd, 2014). Building on the engagement theme, chapter four What Constitutes Meaningful Participation explores the changing relationship between producers and consumers, another parallel to education, as more students seek to be actively involved in a course’s content development—to co-create with instructors and other students. Both chapters offer insight into the issues in context of education, even though authors draw upon examples primarily from the business and entertainment sectors—the applicability is hard to miss.

Lurking
One discussion in chapter three addresses the behavior known as ‘lurking’, a topic of concern when it comes to MOOCs and online courses. Lurkers are students that typically don’t participate or contribute to asynchronous discussion forums, or engage in a real-time video conferencing sessions or other chat venues, yet are reading and/or watching—they are consuming content. Lurking is viewed negatively, or at least as a challenging behaviour by course instructors. More so in courses that require students to participate for course credit. Lurking in connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) also doesn’t go over well, particularly with other MOOC students (Milligan, Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2013). Jenkins, Ford & Green attempt to reframe lurking behaviour. They discuss barriers to online participation and suggest there might be opportunity to scaffold learning, or at scale least levels of participation (p. 158).

“The authors portray “lurkers” (the bane of online communities where the vast majority of members who only consume others’ information without contributing any of their own) as only learning and biding their time until they too understand the rules and start to participate. In Chapter 5 they even describe what makes materials sharable. This will help me to completely rethink the development of content rather than just to focus on why community members are either engaged or not.”  T. Sales, Amazon Reviewer of “Spreadable Media”

Startling Parallel: Audience Fragmentation
Authors discuss engagement specific to television audiences, yet the similarity between television consumers and participants in education (particularly those engaging in open learning) is strong.  Beginning on page 116 the authors address the challenges the media industry is facing due to audiences consuming content across multiple channels e.g television, mobile devices, or DVRs. This behaviour, according to the authors, fragments the audience, an audience that traditionally consumed content via one channel—television. The audience has since splintered in response, and the result?— people consuming the same content on a variety channels creating smaller audiences. This fragmentation makes it difficult for providers to gauge the value of the different audience groups—to establish an appropriate pricing model.

Note the similarities to the education sector. Education, at one time used two distribution channels for content, 1) the instructor in a physical location delivering content to student, and 2) the textbook. It’s no longer the case. Today education content has numerous distribution channels, for example open education resources (OER) via the web, MOOC providers, textbook companies, closed, fee-based education platforms, Khan Academy and the likes. These channels suggest a fragmentation of the education sector—similar to what’s happening the media industry. It’s not surprising that MOOC providers are finding it a challenge to settle on a viable business model.

Even among those who understand that developing business models around such engagement is key, there has been little consensus on how, or even which, measures of engagement are valuable or how to agree on a model… (p. 116).

Closing Thoughts 
“Spreadable Media” puts forth several relevant and thought-provoking concepts specific to our digital culture. The book on the surface seems more applicable to business decision makers, marketers and media scholars given the numerous references to marketing and entertainment examples, however, the parallels to education though subtle are striking making it a worthwhile and interesting read.

Resources

• Click, M. A. (2013). Book Review: Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture, by Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Transformative Works and Cultures (TWC), 14.
• Dodd, T. (2014, October 8). Top MOOC provider edX no longer free for all.
• Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (June). “Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs“.  JOLT – Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. v. 9(2)
• Spreadable Media. (n.d.).

Why Google’s ‘Helpouts’ Concept is a Brilliant Idea for Online Education

Students seek real-time help and support as demonstrated by community use of Google Helpouts

I wrote about synchronous learning in a recent post where I suggested that technological applications have advanced to a point where real-time exchanges between students and instructor, students and students can be facilitated seamlessly, leading to improved quality and better outcomes in online learning. Real time interactions can fill the void frequently mentioned by students and educators—the absence of a personal connection, the human touch in online learning environments. My position is that synchronous, real-time exchanges will bring what we now call ‘distance learning’, or ‘online learning’ to a new level, where distance is no longer a barrier, and online learning becomes ‘learning’. Distance and the barriers associated with it will disappear.

In this post I review the Google Helpouts platform, launched by Google in late 2013 that provides a method for face-to-face learning via a video call, and is one that institutions and online providers could model. Such a platform can bring significant benefits to students and their respective institutions. Benefits that include increased student performance, higher levels of student engagement, and reduced attrition. There is also potential for value-added services that include life skills development, career advice, networking skills, and coaching for students transitioning from school to the work world. Before getting to my proposal for institutions that models the idea of Google Helpouts—first a brief overview of the platform.

Google Helpouts Overview
Google has a long history of launching new tools and platforms, many of which don’t catch on, fade into obscurity, essentially fail, but whether Google Helpouts becomes a success is not the point of the this post, it’s the concept that has great potential for online learning, specifically for institutions and providers of online education that serve high school or undergraduate students. It’s the concept that is worth examining—how can the idea of real-time student interaction help institutions improve learning outcomes.

Three ‘Helpouts’ listed within the Education & Careers category on Google Helpouts

What’s a Google Helpout?
‘Real help from real people in real time’ is Helpouts tag line. It’s essentially an online service where one can find an expert in a given field, and pay by the minute to receive realtime help and guidance from the expert using a web cam.  I see it as an extension of YouTube, but you get to interact with the expert, get feedback and ask questions.

“Live interactive video. Helpouts are conducted through live video calls with the provider. During the session, you can point your camera to show what you need help with, or take a photo, or even allow the provider to remotely access your computer to fix a problem. For example, you can point your camera at a broken appliance. If you don’t want the provider to see you, you can always turn off your camera. If both you and the provider agree ahead of time, you also can record the Helpout, and it’ll automatically be saved in your Google Drive” Introduction to Helpouts by Google

Google Helpouts features eight categories that include Art & Music, Computers & Electronics, Education & Careers, and more.  Not surprisingly, there are several Helpout options within the Education & Careers category, many related to math, writing  and SAT prep support. But here is where it gets interesting, there are also Helpouts featuring support in Test-Taking Strategies, Giving a Speech: Coaching support for students, Finding a job using Social Media, and Learn more Effectively by Taking Better Notes!.  This last Helpout appears to be one of the most sought-after, with over 45 reviews by users giving five stars (out of five). In fact after reviewing several categories, it appears the Education category has the most reviews by users, which may be an indication it’s generating the most interest. It appears there is a great demand for not only subject specific support, but study skills, communication and job searching skills.

How Does Apply the ‘Real Time Helpout’ Concept to Education?
Given the apparent demand for personalized support related to education, it’s worth examining in light of the problems and opportunities that exist within online education—could there be a fit? I believe so. Let’s look at some of the biggest barriers to online learning cited by students (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005).

1. Lack of social interaction
2. Administrative / Instructor issues
3. Time and support for Studies
4. Learner motivation

Institutions also face challenges of poor student performance and low completion rates for-credit courses for students enrolled in the online or blended courses. A recent example is the San Jose pilot project with Udacity, where three courses were offered online for students, including a remedial math course. Results were poor, with the pass rate far lower than in the face-to-face class. Student motivation, time and lack of academic skills were factors influencing the poor results.

Low completion rates, another challenge—yet when looking at successful programs we find that one-on-one coaching and mentoring is key component to success. This is a method Western Governors University has relied upon since its inception. And the City University of New York (CUNY), gives us an example of a public institution addressing problems of low graduation rates and low performance with its Accelerated Study in Associate Program (ASAP) that increased graduation rates significantly from 23% to an incredible 56%. Though financial support was part of the program, another was the academic advising and support  “[the] ASAP website  [provided] the personal touch — biweekly seminars and one-on-one advising.” (Kirp, 2014).

Scheduling tool associated with each expert’s service, Google Helpouts

Proposal for ‘Student Helpouts’
I suggest institutions seeking to increase the quality of online programs and success of their students, adopt a platform that closely follows the Google Helpouts format. A platform that features a similar interface (how the platform looks and its ease of use) and infrastructure (how it works) that upon implementation supports seamless communication including online scheduling, ability for students to provide feedback, and a selection of services and educators to choose from for support. The platform would be a landing-place for students that require:

• Academic advising, what courses to take, drop, and planning for graduation
• Help with course work that is subject specific
• Support with the writing of academic papers, essays, etc.
• Life Skills coaching: time management, stress management
• Career Building Skills: Resume advice, how to interview, how to look for a job, using social media

How it Might Work
Of course, the question is how would it work, for instance who would be providing the services?  I suggest a combination of students and employees of the institution as the tutors, mentors and advisors. Senior students could be hired to provide tutoring support, even mentoring support for new or struggling students.  Employees working in the institutions academic advising, career services, student aid departments would provide support specific to their department’s services.

Another question, how would transactions be funded? Students could be assigned a certain number credits each semester that they can use towards the Student Helpout platform, which is included in students’ tuition.  Once the credits run out, students can buy additional credits, or apply for ‘free’ credits depending on certain criteria. At-risk students, or those identified as requiring remedial support, may be awarded an additional block of credits.

Conclusion
I see great potential with a platform such as Student Helpouts. It’s a platform that could address the barriers students associate with online learning—the lack of social connection and personalized interaction, poor motivation, and absence of needed academic skills for college level work. I acknowledge that this vision is simplistic, lacks depth, as it is only an idea where the details have not been fleshed out.  Yet my goal here is to provide ideas and perspectives for institutions and educators about technology and its role as a tool for providing personalized support and guidance of high school and undergraduate students. And to meet the challenges of online learning, while at the same time helping educators and institutions remain relevant, effective and prepare students for thinking, living and learning in 2015 and beyond. Now that would be brilliant.

References:

• Google Helpouts
• Jaschik, S. An Hour Makes a Difference, Inside Higher Ed, February 17, 2014
• Kirp, D.  How to Help College Students Graduation, The New York Times, January 8, 2014
• Mulienburg, L.Y. & Berg, Z. (2005).  Student Barriers to Online Learning, Distance Education, 26 (1), 29–48.
• Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course: Experiences of three international students. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 11(1), 17-36.

Image credit: ‘Help Out Sign’ by brizzle, born & bred, Flickr

What Will Education Look Like in 2025? What the Experts Have to Say

“Experts predict the Internet will become ‘like electricity’ — less visible, yet more deeply embedded in people’s lives for good and ill” 

Word Cloud from Pew Research Report ‘Digital Life in 20205’

The Web is 25 years old this month. Quite astounding really if one thinks how entwined with and dependent our lives are on the internet.  Pew Research published a weighty report this week in honor of the Web’s anniversary, Digital Life in 2025. The results are thought-provoking, even controversial.  I urge readers to read the full report at some point, though in this post I highlight a host of predictions specific to education, made by numerous experts and scholars. Pew’s report includes thoughts and visions from hundreds of experts, including faculty from some of the best public and private research institutions in the world.

Brief Overview
To appreciate it fully, readers may find the background of the report helpful. The report is the work of Pew Research group and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center.  The Digital Life in 2025 looks to the future of the internet, collectively assessing how life might look in 2025 with input from hundreds of experts on how the Web will influence various aspects our lives, including privacy, relationships, education to name just a few. This report is part of a series, its forerunner The Web at 25 in the U.S. looks at the present and past of the internet. A good read that provides context for the future and emphasizes the incredibly swift adoption of an invention that has changed institutions, values and culture.

The Purpose of the Report: To look to the future and identify patterns and themes that may affect aspects of society and everyday life in 2025 by examining a collection of predictions from internet experts and engaged citizens. In this post I focus on predictions specific to education.

Who had input: Pew gathered feedback via a web-survey, collecting 2,558 responses. Respondents fall into three categories, 1) targeted experts identified by the Pew Research Center’s Internet Project; experts that have extensive experience with internet research and/or input during its formative years, 2) targeted technology groups gathered from listervs of internet analysts and associations, and 3) the mailing list of the Pew Research Center Internet Project that includes individuals who closely follow technology trends and related research. Many of the experts are faculty members at leading public and private higher education institutions within the United States and beyond. Input from non-experts is included to give insight into how everyday people are influenced by the abundance of digital information and constant connectivity.

“Make your prediction about the role of the Internet in people’s lives in 2025 and the impact it will have on social, economic, and political processes. Good and/or bad, what do you expect to be the most significant overall impacts of our uses of the Internet on humanity between now and 2025?”  One of the eight questions from the survey 

The Fifteen Theses: More-Hopeful and Less-Hopeful 
Upon analysis of the responses, Pew identified recurring themes, summarizing each into fifteen theses. Eight are considered ‘more-hopeful’ where experts view the effects of the internet as positive overall, while six are grouped into the ‘concerned’ category, the word used by Pew authors to describe the ‘less-hopeful‘ theses, and one thesis is categorized as neutral. After reading the less-hopeful theses, I might describe the category somewhat differently than ‘concerned’ as Pew does, given thesis #10 for example, “Abuses and abusers will ‘evolve and scale.’ Human nature isn’t changing; there’s laziness, bullying, stalking, stupidity, pornography, dirty tricks, crime, and those who practice them have new capacity to make life miserable for others”. Though I can see why Pew wanted to put a more positive spin on the darker predictions given there is a continuum of negative viewpoints.

“These experts expect existing positive and negative trends to extend and expand in the next decade, revolutionizing most human interaction, especially affecting health, education, work, politics, economics, and entertainment. Most say they believe the results of that connectivity will be primarily positive. However, when asked to describe the good and bad aspects of the future they foresee, many of the experts can also clearly identify areas of concern, some of them extremely threatening. Heightened concerns over interpersonal ethics, surveillance, terror, and crime, may lead societies to question how best to establish security and trust while retaining civil liberties.” 15 Theses About the Digital Future, (Anderson & Raine, 2014)

Predictions about Education
Education is mentioned throughout the report.  At the top of most experts lists is the idea of sharing and accessing knowledge within a global community; several experts “expect the evolution of online tools to expand the ways in which a formal education can be delivered, disrupting the status quo.”  Though thesis number eight addresses education specifically. It’s a bold statement that could be viewed positively or negatively depending upon your perspective, though it is categorized in the more-hopeful theses section: “An Internet-enabled revolution in education will spread more opportunities, with less money spent on real estate and teachers.”

Selection of Comments from Thesis #8:

Adrian Schofield, manager of applied research for the Johannesburg Centre for Software Engineering, wrote, “The Internet will be the core means of creating, analysing, storing, and sharing information in any form that can be digitised… Learning will no longer be dependent on the quality of parents and teachers in person. Scholars and students will have access to the best materials and content available globally.”

Alex Halavais, an associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at Arizona State University, predicted, “I suspect we will start to see some really extraordinary changes in the way people learn over the next decade that will continue beyond that. Especially in higher education, the current institutional structures are at a breaking point. The Internet is both a large part of the problem and a part of the solution…”

“All public education will be by master teachers who connect through the Internet to all students across the country — local teachers will become tutors only.” — Anonymous (U.S. based)  

The following comments though included in thesis #8, appear quite concerned, not hopeful at all.

Celia Pearce, an associate professor of digital media at the Georgia Institute of Technology, wrote, “… The US education system will continue to decline; as a result, we will continue to see a poor match in labor demands and labor pool, along with a continued growth of economic disparity in this country, as well as outsourcing to tech-related jobs abroad.”

Joan Neslund, an information resources professional, agreed, writing, “Education will totally change with global classrooms. The United States will no longer rule the world; we will have a difficult time keeping our heads above water. Corporate greed has killed us. Students won’t think about the technology behind what they do; they will focus on the methods and collaboration that will happen.

On the other hand some educators don’t believe much will change at all, in fact things will pretty much stay the same.

Justin Reich, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, predicted, “The transformation of the educational sector will prove far, far overblown. Especially in the K-12 system, schools in 2025 will look an awful lot like schools in 2013.”

Anonymously, a professor at the University of California…”The educated, capable, innovative populations from which local and national leaders have traditionally been drawn will be less involved with geographically oriented communities and institutions — to the detriment of those communities and institutions…”

What Does This Mean for Educators
Granted Digital Life in 2025 is a set of predictions, guesses really, but educated guesses given the expertise of the respondents. The Pew Internet Research Series holds great value for educators—it demonstrates that change is coming, is inevitable. Though it doesn’t provide a blueprint by any means, it does provide glimpses into what education might look like, could become in a few short years, for better or worse. Will your institution be ready?

Further Reading

• Digital Life in 2025, Janna Anderson & Lee Raine, Pew Research Internet Project
• Happy 25 Birthday World Wide Web! An Intentionally Brief History of You, Chris Gayomali, Fast Company
• Imagining the Internet: A History and a Forecast, Elon University
• Statement from Tim Berners-Lee on the 25th Anniversary of the Web, Pew Research
• Tim Berners-Lee, Wikipedia

Need-to-Know News: White Male Cohort in Georgia Tech MOOC Degree & Surprising Data on Student Tech Use

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.  Note: This is a re-posting of a blog article published on January 18, 2014.

Cohort Begins in the First-ever Massive Online Degree Program 
Georgia Tech in conjunction with Udacity launched its first cohort of 375 students in its MOOC-inspired Masters of Computer Science 100% online degree program. Readers may remember the headlines, a computer science Master’s Degree from Georgia Institute of Technology, offered 100% online for less than $7,000. The program, inspired by MOOCs and with start-up funds from AT&T was voted as a ‘go’ by Georgia Tech faculty last year.

We now have a profile of enrolled students in the first cohort which started this week—there is little diversity; the vast majority are white males, who work and live in the United States. Yet Sebastian Thrun described the cohort in his blog post quite differently,  “This is a very big day for us. Udacity’s mission is to democratize higher education. With this program, we are making a top-notch computer science education available to a much broader group of students… I believe this is a watershed moment for students around the world. ” What exactly does Thrun mean by ‘much broader group of students’? Ironically, there is more diversity in Georgia Tech’s on-campus Master’s of Computer Science Program than in this one.

Online Degree Program Applicant Demographics:

• 2,360 applicants: 86% male, 14% female
• 514 applicants from AT&T
• Over 80% resided in the United States: Most represented states:  343 from California and 336 from Georgia

There is a disconnect between the final numbers in the cohort, 375 and what a Udacity spokesperson said this past October, “450 of the applicants will start the program in January, but every qualified applicant will be accepted and may start next summer“.

Final Cohort Student Demographics:

• 375 students: 82 work at AT&T
• 330 or 92% are from the US, in contrast to Georgia Tech’s on-campus comparable program, of which 90% are International
• Average age is thirty-five, eleven years older than the on-campus program

Insights: The demographic profile of the programs’ applicants, and enrolled students are worth examining as stand alone data, and in comparison to Georgia Tech’s traditional degree; it provides a window into the potential and pitfalls associated with offering a fully online, Masters degree offered at a cost that requires considerable scale.  In order for the program to be sustainable, it requires 10,000 by the third year. Is this feasible given the student profile where there are so few students from outside of the United States?

• Georgia Tech Launches World’s First Massive Online Degree Program, Georgia Tech College of Computing
• The First Cohort, (2014)  Inside Higher Ed
• Who Applied to Georgia Tech’s Master’s Program, (2013), Inside Higher Ed

2) Report Suggests Higher Education and MOOCs like Oil and Water
This week Babson Survey Research Group released its eleventh annual report about the state of online education in the United States, Grade Change, Tracking Online Education in the United States. The report collected data from 2800 colleges and universities in the US and provides a readable summary of critical issues in online education: perceptions of online education, enrolled student data, and online as a strategy. I find the Babson reports helpful in identifying patterns and trends in online education.  This is the  second year MOOCs data is included, and this year’s data is more telling and potentially helpful for institutions and organizations involved in higher education given the comparison to last year’s numbers . Highlights:

• The top three reasons that institutions site for offering MOOCs
  • increase the institution’s visibility: 27.2%
  • to drive student recruitment : 20.0 %
  • innovative pedagogy: 18.0%
• How well are MOOCs meeting institution’s objectives
  • too early to tell: 65.8%
  • meeting very few:  1.3 %
  • meeting some: 17.2%
• Only 23 percent of academic leaders believe that MOOCs represent a sustainable method for offering online courses.

Insights: It’s apparent that the profile of the typical MOOC student is not the undergraduate student profile—an example is Udacity’s experience with San Jose State University, where Thrun called his course a lousy product [to explain the failure of the program], which isn’t quite accurate. MOOCs [offered through MOOC platforms, i.e. Coursera, Udacity] are not the best vehicles to serve the needs of undergraduate students. Institutions have invested considerable resources in MOOCs, it’s time to move on.

• Grade Change, Tracking Online Education in the United States, The Sloan Consortium
• Clarification: No, there aren’t 7.1 million students in US taking at least one online class, e-literate

3) Students and Technology— It’s Not What You Think 
The report by EDUCAUSE about higher education students’ and their technology use as it relates to their education is enlightening. It includes their perceptions, usage patterns and needs when it comes to technology—it’s a must read. The info graphic [below] gives a good summary of the findings. Other highlights:

• Students recognize the value of technology but still need guidance when it comes to using it more effectively for academics
• Students prefer blended learning environments
• Students are ready to use their mobile devices more for academics, and they look to institutions and instructors for opportunities and encouragement to do so.
• Students value their privacy, and using technology to connect with them has its limits.

References:

• ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013, ECAR Research Hub
• Infographic, ‘Students and Technology in 2013’

Insights: Student patterns—their behaviours, and interaction with technology give institutional leaders and educators a glimpse into how to effectively provide support and make education relevant. I wrote a post about this very topic last week.

To keep up with other developments in online learning, you can follow me on Twitter, @onlinelearningi.