Preparing for Higher Education 2030 featuring George Siemens


[ Applause ]>>Well thanks very much for
the privilege of your attention and for the opportunity to dialogue
with you about some areas of interest that are quite pronounced for me and
that I have a high level of interest in broadly because I believe
they’re critical for addressing some of the large, pressing
challenges that we face societally. I have the opportunity to
reflect on what we expect or what education might
look like as we go forward. What’s the impact that
it might have on society, how will it structurally be different
from the kinds of opportunities that we engage in today as
a higher education system? How will it internationalize? How will it impact globally? How will it impact the competitiveness
of different school districts or different regions
or different countries? So I want to address this in
really a 4-part or 4-part topic. I’m going to talk at you for
about 40, 45 minutes or so and then we’ll have a fair
bit of time for Q and A. Because I’d be more interested
in hearing what some of your experiences are and how
you’ve encountered different aspects of digital learning. So much of my view of the future
of education is really framed around digital technologies and the way in which digital technologies
impact knowledge. So very broadly speaking,
I will say that if you want to understand the future of education
you have to understand the architecture and structure of knowledge. How are we creating knowledge, how are
we sharing it, how are we validating it? Who has power and control to create it? Who has power and control to prevent
its creation or its dissemination? And so I’ll do that discussion around
the future universities or the model that the university might look like
through looking at some of the trends. This broad idea of latency
which I’ll clarify a little bit, it’s probably a little vague right now. And then I want to talk about
the university at large. What are some of the changes that
we’re observing that are going to alter universities from a single
entity system as we know them today to something that will look much
more like an ecosystem with a range of players and a far more
complex impact on society. And unfortunately also as
a byproduct, more political and more confrontational
interactions as well. And then I want to briefly
look at what then is the future in terms of higher education. What will a university look like in an
era that is more or less fully digital? Or at minimum is increasing
digital first and how does that impact our residential spaces or
traditional university environments. So let’s start with trends. Probably not much of
a shock to anyone here but there are some fairly dramatic
changes in terms of the labor market. And I know universities are more than a
system for preparing learners for work, but we can’t overlook the significance
of that aspect of higher education. There’s much more at stake in terms of
creating societies of informed citizens. Society of individuals who were
thoughtful and compassionate and aware of the challenges that face a region,
that are able to provide commentary and a counterbalancing influence to the
existing power structures of society. So those are all roles
that universities play. But they also play a significant
role in terms of employment and employment opportunities. And this is where some of the jobs that
are changing and disappearing start to become quite pronounced. This is particularly true regarding
automation and the growing influence of robotics, artificial intelligence. It’s true in terms of the portion of
society’s work that’s being conducted as knowledge-related work and
what’s being conducted more so as traditional manufacturing-related
work. And I’ll get a slide on that in a bit. By the way for any of you, all
the slides or the references here in the notes of the presentation. So I’ll share that with the organizers
and they can share it with you if you’re interested in
any of the references. We’re also seeing, in
developed regions of the world, production work is a small
part of the overall economy. The vast majority of work that’s being
done in society now is work that’s done in either interaction
or transaction jobs. What at one point we used to call
knowledge work even in regions such as China, that are still
heavily industrializing countries with a strong manufacturing base. Those regions are also experiencing
a decline in those types of jobs and a net increase in
knowledge-related work. And if you want to get a sense of
just was does that look like visually. This is a graph of the
largest industries by state in terms of employment. And so this graph is from the 1990s, you really see 2 images
predominately reflected. Manufacturing which his blue,
the red which is retail. And then you see you know a
few little difference there with accommodation or food services. But this is the structure of the largest
employees in the 1990s in the US. As of 2013, you’ve seen a
fairly dramatic reversal where the largest sector of employment
now, perhaps, not surprisingly but its health care, which you
expect with an aging population. But you’re also seeing the shift now,
where manufacturing is really limited to about a handful or a
half a dozen states or so. The vast majority is health care. Still a little bit with accommodation
and a bit more with retail. But there’s a dramatic change in the
economy and the economic structure. Not just of the United
States, but globally. Another aspect that’s quite
consequential trend wise is what’s happening around our student population. So in a word, our students
are diversifying. The students that we’ve had in
the past are not the students that we’re getting today. And they’re different on a range
of different elements if you will. First of all they’re no longer
the majority of students. Fulltime students are now less than half of the student population,
in the US at least. These systems, the enrollment numbers
that are emerging, favor women over men. It’s also a greater percentage of the population that’s
entering higher education. In some regions it’s as high as 60%. Part of the intent was Obama’s sort
of first in the world call was to try and bring US back into a leadership
position for highest nation in terms of post-secondary education. We’re seeing a greater
number of students that enter the university sector as well
that have already spent some time either in the workforce, or just doing else. So they’re entering universities,
not sequentially necessarily. In some cases it’s the workforce first,
and then entering the university sector. And then other areas
certainly that you can expect. Growing internationalization
is a significant element. We’re also seeing the
racial ethnic diversity of universities increasing as well. This is stats from California, which
shows that the white student population as a percentage is decreasing, with the Latino population
increasing most significantly. If you look at it broadly
across all public universities in the US white student
population, this year, 2014, for the first time dipped below 50% as
the majority of the students population. In 5 years that’s expected
to drop about another 3%. And the big gainers are in the Latino,
and Asian, and biracial populations. The rest of the populations either
hold stable, or have slight declines. So it’s a different university
system or different university market that is going to be coming
knocking on our doorsteps. And in response to some of the
changes in the labor market, the different profiles of
learners, we’re also seeing changes around the structure of learning itself. Learning being more granulized,
reflective of modularized learning. Some of you may have seen the
report released by MIT last week, where some of the publicity
that Wisconsin has received around their interest in creating
modules, not full courses. Reducing, and this is with
their MOOCs, in particular. But it’s this idea that we’re taking
what used to be a 12-week course and we’re making it smaller,
we’re chunking it down. And also taking greater
acknowledgment of what has happened around prior learning
assessment and recognition. What did you do before
you got to university? What do you do in your spare time? What did you do while you
were in the workforce? So those factors are involved. That then also creates a context
for granulization of assessment. Meaning that the way in which
we evaluate students moves from course-based assessment
to something that starts to look a little bit more like badges, but badges still have a
certain stigma to them. But something that says we
are not going to evaluate you at a course level for
competence anymore. We’re going to evaluate
you at a competency level, at an individual competence. And there’s a range of
opportunities around what that might look like going forward. Add to that. In the US right now we’re
seeing a significant increase. You don’t need to necessarily
look at the stats here because well you probably can’t. But the general point is that about
12.5% of the student population in the US has taken online courses. And if you look at some of the work
done by the, what’s now called the, what is it, it used to the be Sloan-C
Consortium, but the online learning. Okay that’s them. I felt like I was a preacher
there for a while. All rise and repeat after me. But that organization they say it’s
up to 30% of students have taken at least one online course. The stats are presented here by National
Institution for Education statistics. Looked at the number of students that
had taken sort of substantial online, or been exclusively involved
in online or distance learning. So as a result we end up with this
landscape where in a nutshell, we have a complexification
of higher education. We’re serving a broadening student base
that has a different range of needs. We have a society that is experiencing
some fairly dramatic shifts economically and in terms of employment. The single narrative of a university
just doesn’t suffice anymore. Much like the idea of a university, Newman’s emphasis that’s now
you know 100 plus years old. The idea of a university
today needs updating. Because it’s changing, it’s
expanding and it’s evolving. Now there’s a few ways in which
this will go and I’ll talk about this a little bit
later on in the presentation. But broadly speaking, we
have an opportunity either to have the university
become a much more integral and prominent organization in society. I think there’s a very real opportune
that that will be the outcome. But we also have a potential situation that will see the university become
less prominent and actually diminish in influence as an ecosystem of startups
and other organizations come in. Here’s why I’m particularly interested
in seeing the university continue to, not only grow, but to thrive and
increase its influence in society. And that’s largely to do with
this idea of what is knowledge and what happens in a knowledge process. So just humor me everybody’s got to have
the little you know, the 2 by 2 matrix to try to articulate something. So let’s talk about learning
and knowledge from a range of different needs that we
engage in on a daily basis. So if you look at your top
left, its daily sense making. This is what happens when you wake
up one morning and it’s like oh, crap I have a kid and you got
to figure out like what do I do. And so this is where you have all
the experiences of oh she’s sick, I’ve got to take her to a doctor or oh. So this is the process where
we’re interacting with the world on a daily basis and that process of
daily interaction, we’re learning. We’re making sense of
the world around us. And it might be through how we
interact with our work activities. Somebody comes in and says by
the way, you know Angel is going to no longer be used,
we’re moving to Blackboard. Or some such discussion. This is all a process
of daily sense making. Large of these are low-level
knowledge tasks, but they’re often quite
urgent knowledge task because we need them
right now to do something. Then we have, if you
drop down from there. This is what university
has largely done to date, which is we map to existing knowledge. Somebody somewhere knows something. We bring students in and we try to
duplicate what the faculty member knows. We take them through a course, we
take them through a master’s program and especially if you’ve taken
any of the open online courses to gain prominence, you’re familiar with
it’s very much a container based model. Like I know this, or
this is what’s known. You are over here, you will be filled
with this knowledge, and away you go. This is an important area of learning,
but I don’t think it’s the area of learning going forward because we
enter a complex, emerging, social, cultural landscape that has pressing
problems that aren’t necessarily able to be addressed by applying a matrix or a pre-existing framework
to that problem. We’re very much facing a challenge that
whether it’s like the SARS outbreak in 2003, or today it’s with Ebola, or
it could be with the financial crisis of 2008, but we’re in a
climate and in a culture. Both economically, educationally,
our knowledge needs, and societally where we are facing
a landscape that shifts rapidly. And that means tolerance for ambiguity. Willing to accept the
answers aren’t known, but collectively we can
often find those answers if we’re networked and
connected properly. That’s the landscape. So as much as this has been historically
an important area of learning and knowledge, it’s no
longer the exclusive domain where I think we need to be. So instead I would argue
that this is kind of that crisis framework
that top corner. This is where big things
go wrong like 2008. Where we rapidly need to try to mobilize
and make sense of our landscape. Your bottom right is this idea of new
knowledge and that’s with creativity, and creation, and innovation. OECD recently did a report
on the innovation capacity of higher education as a whole. We didn’t fare overwhelmingly well. There’s a few lack of confidence
in the system in some levels. But then you see regions of the world I
was reading a report from Canada today that looked at the growing
influence of the universities as an outsource opportunity for
corporate research and development. So there’s some interesting elements
up in play that we need to try and get a better sense of or to
make sense of what that means. So largely our existing educational
practices address the quadrants of stability. Whether it is stability in terms
of daily sense making activities or stability in terms of oh I need
to take a masters in data science. Because the way the world has
traditionally worked is a trend slowly starts, it builds and builds. Employment fills out and
that just keeps happening. Twenty years later it might
dwindle out a bit and away you go. I think we need to start acclimating
ourselves to 2 to 5 year careers, meaning a knowledge domain emerges,
explodes, has a huge impact, fades, someone else comes in, or some
other knowledge discipline comes in. Because that’s the nature
and the pace of development. So more and more we’re
going to start looking at something where the future of work. And this is, as I mentioned earlier,
and I’ll mention again, and again later. Is that if you want to understand
the future of the university, understand the architecture and
structure of knowledge today. And we’re now in a space where we have
this need for knowledge that responds to crises, or knowledge that
responds to newness and to innovation. Unfortunately, the university system
is in a bit of a bad space today. And since 2008, certainly in the US, it has had some fairly
significant challenges. And these challenges have put, for lack
of a better word, I’ll use the term that we’ve put universities
into something that looks a bit like a revenue vice. So by revenue vice, I mean,
we have seen a decline in state support almost across, there’s
been a slight uptake in the last year, but this was after significant
decreases. We’re starting to see a small
increase in support again. But there is also a blocking
element now, which is that we don’t have
the same flexibility in tuition that we’ve had in the past. And that produces a significant
challenge for us, because in the past it was if the state
said, “We’re cutting your budget X,” you could say fine, we’ll raise our
tuition S. And now all the sudden get to a point where universities,
especially smaller universities, are not able to increase their
tuition to offset the decrease in public support for universities. And that’s reflected even just in
this general idea of pricing power and this is from a “Wall Street
Journal” article in 2013 that looked at the declining opportunities that
universities have to increase tuition and the way that this, actually for good
reason, has a way of terrifying leaders. As and unfortunately this quote, let
me just quickly rectified that quote. Why did that move there? I don’t know. Or will I? Come back. All right. Apparently I will not
move that over there. Anyway, so the general idea here is that
as one leader had stated that we are at a point now where we don’t
know where we’re heading. We don’t know what the structure is
of the universities going forward. I’m not going to touch my laptop. We don’t know where my laptop went. No I think I’ve got my mouse is flakey. Anyway so if I get back to here
I will continue talking at you. So these are the issues around
pricing and pricing powers, that we have this tuition
vice or this revenue vice that has really put many universities
in a spot where they’re going to need think differently
about future revenue. And I’ll deal with that briefly
when I return to the structure of the university of couple points down. I want to talk about something that at
first, I think might seem like well, “What does that have to do
with your talk today, George?” But hopefully it will become
clear as I go forward with it. So, quick question. What do these things have in common? Airbnb, they have a new logo now,
but apparently it’s a very adult. Uber? Yes, Flickr, Blogger,
and just to mess you up, I’ll add this one to the equation. All of these share one attribute, which I think is probably the most
defining attribute of the digital age. And that is the activation
of latent capacity. So if you look at let’s say a system
like Airbnb, which basically allows you to make, if you have living space and you’re not around,
you can make it available. Or with Uber, you have a vehicle, anyone can suddenly start
playing the role of a taxi driver. So is activating the latent
capacity that exists there. Or things like Flickr, sharing our
images and making them available. The same thing. I mean where did all
those YouTube videos, all those cat videos,
and all those whatever. Where did they go pre-YouTube or tweets? I mean, there’s the sense
in which these technologies, the ones that have been most successful
have done one significant thing. And that is they’ve activated some
kind of existing latency that exists in human communication systems. At some level, you get
systems likes Seti and others that activate a network
latent computing capacity. Google’s technology infrastructure. One of the things that it
did exceptionally well. And if you’re familiar with the story
of Google, it started, as you’re aware, a couple of doctoral students at
Stanford, they didn’t have any money. So when they set up Google they had to
basically run around the universities, scrounge the hardware pieces that they
needed to try to run their servers, because they couldn’t afford
the top-of-the-line servers that was the norm that day for web work. And so they ended up spending
their time, they had poor hardware. They spent their time making
their software useful. Building in redundancy,
you know, trying to speed up the pace of progressing by adding. Instead of having you know 2
massively expensive computers, they could have 500 cheap computers
of which 10% could fail at any time, and the whole system would still work. So it’s just this general
idea of latency. Then you start looking at things
such as a range of movements that haven’t all generated the
outcome that was initially predicted. Whether it’s the impact
of Occupy Wall Street or discussions around Arab Spring. Or any of the tools that
we’ve looked at. We have this fundamental technological
drive to extend human’s capability, cognitive capabilities, more
generally through the use of digital resources and technology. So much like the frailty
of humanity’s inability to till the soil with our hands. We develop tools that
enabled us to do that. Our inability to share quickly,
readily because of physical and a range of other constraints, we’re developing
cognitive agents that enable us to activate the latency
and the desire that we have for that level of communication. Now what does this mean for knowledge? Well I’ll just call this
very briefly, this 100 people in a room theory of knowledge. Which is that if, and we’ve
probably got let’s say roughly that number in the room. We all have enormous
latent knowledge capacity. All of you are brilliant,
informed, educated people. But you’re all sitting here while one
person has trouble with his mouse. And there is an enormous
inefficiency in that model. There is an enormous inefficiency
in the latency that exists when you have a room full of people like
this, or if you have a lecture hall full of students, or if you have an
online course full of learners. If you take a traditional
structured approach, those people in the room
have an enormous capacity to teach one another a range of
things that would be startling. I mean if I were to say, who here
majored in biology when you were going or had a significant major,
minor whatever in biology. All right. So we’ve got one person who can
teach us, but what about stats? Who’s got an affinity for statistics? We’ve got several there. What about your calculus students. I mean somebody, okay. So you know, if you were to go through, the issue is that we don’t
reveal these things to ourselves. Like we go out and say
I know these things. We don’t wear it in an obvious way. And I’ll return to this again in
a few points, but it’s this sense that we don’t have the technical
infrastructure that allows us to let others know the
things that we know. And if only there was a way outside of
somebody saying, “Hey what do you know about biology, or what
do you know about stats?” There’s an inefficiency in our
technical systems in education today that don’t allow us to activate the
latent knowledge capacity that exists in a class, or that exist in a course. Now there’s a huge benefit when
you have a system like this. So it’s really the power of integration. So, Facebook. Many of the things that Facebook did, many of us were doing
online since the late 90s. We were sharing images, we were
sharing posts and updates, we were, at that point, using you
know a reader, an RSS reader. And sharing on blogs and
collaborating on wiki’s. And sometimes you had to host your
own website to share your images. Or whatever you did. But we were doing all of the things that
Facebook essentially allows us to do. But what Facebook did was it
integrated those fragmented experiences. And by integrating those
fragmented experiences. All of a sudden there was a significant
increase in the number of people in society that could
participate in that space. Up until then, you have to have
your own web server, would be nice. You had to have basic familiarity with
simple tools, or technology, like HTML or you know, being able to create your
RSS wrappers, or whatever you did. You have to have some familiarity
with those types of things. But all the sudden Facebook comes
along and it does everything that these other tools did
but it integrates it in a way that suddenly activates the ability for
people to share annoying status updates. And so in education, that’s
precisely our challenge. We’re waiting for this type of thing. We’re waiting for our
latency activating tools. And they’ll come. It’s just a matter of time. Because the ability for us to essentially make transparent what
you know to declare the knowledge that we possess to whether
that’s done explicitly or mined. Because the increasingly
it is data-mined. And then the ability
to create a persistent and ongoing knowledge map or identity. I think is really one of
the key critical areas that universities have
to address going forward. So that this idea of latency. It hopefully will become a little
more clear why I address that. Let’s talk a little bit
about the university. So higher education is under a range of dramatic pressures
as I already referenced. Ranging from the economics, to the changing student population,
to the changing workforce. It’s important to emphasize that the university though
is not a business per se. In fact, as this quote from Bill Powers
the president of UT Austin stated that in many ways you know, the University has business-like
processes within it. These need to be managed like business,
but it’s a mistake to say that just because we enroll students,
that we now need to make the learning process equally
structured and business-like. That’s a mistaken assumption. So the recognition is that while
there business-like elements in higher education, and those have
grown in interest, we very much need to emphasize that the experience of
a university is entirely different and outside, or maybe not even outside, but has a completely different
set of metrics for success. Because whereas a business’ output
and success is reflected in quarterly or annual reports, a
university’s success is reflected in the generational success
of a region or of a society. Now one of things that happens
in this landscape, though, is we have an awareness that, of course, perhaps doesn’t have the
longevity that it once had. That the very idea of a class
needs to change and this unbundling of classes is going to have a
reasonably substantial impact. Because right now the credit
hour and everything related, especially in the US, but the funding
model and everything around that. Is so pronounced around the credit
model, that if we do away with that, it really throws a lot of
these elements up in the air. And so the idea of class,
being replaced by modules, or the idea of competency-based
education is something that we need to acclimate ourselves to, in terms
of how it adjusts much of what we do in terms of the existing
business practice. And for a lot of academic leaders. This is an important challenge. Because academic leaders,
business officers in particular, only 1 in 4 strongly agree that
their business or their university, their institution had a
sustainable financial model. Even in the short term. Once you started moving
beyond 5 years in length, that dropped to roughly 12, 13%. So the people who are leading the
academic structure of the university and seeing the writing on the
wall for a variety of reasons. They don’t have a lot of confidence
that our universities are moving in a direction or in a
pathway that is desirable. And that means that we’re going to see a far greater
commercialization interest on campuses. Because universities are changing
the previously stable supply of tuition dollars and government
dollars is being replaced by a hodgepodge of different corporate
sponsorship and other arrangements that are trying to fill the
gap between that revenue vice. Other challenges for the university,
probably most pronounced is beginning to think outside of the current
structure of the university. We are very strongly tied to
the legacy education system. Even now, with the whole
issue with MOOCs. The biggest criticism of MOOCs that I
keep hearing is low completion rates. I mean MOOCs were never
about low completion rates. It’s this idea of who
completes a library. I mean, it was a completely
different set of metrics for MOOCs and yet we see a new technology through
the lens of our existing experiences and it’s discounted or weighted
based on those premises. And yet there’s a lot happening
in online and digital learning that isn’t comparable to the university. In fact, it in many ways
will pose some challenges to the existing physical
structure of the university. One of the areas that’s
perhaps most pronounced in this or perhaps has the most significant
opportunities around it is this idea of personalization and adaptivity. Instead of 1 faculty member
or 1 course for 25 students, you have basically 25
courses for 25 students. And there are organizations, Newton and Smart Sparrow probably being among
the most prominent that are moving in this adaptive personalized learning
landscape that ends up doing something to the effect of saying well, what
if we can map learner knowledge. It doesn’t matter how they
developed it, formally or informally in the university classroom,
in a MOOC, it doesn’t matter. If we understand the architecture
of knowledge in a discipline. So in order to be a physicist this
is the mapping of the knowledge and the attributes and the competencies
that a physicist needs to have. The opportunity then to say that
all of us take a different pathway through universities,
at a granular level. Not we take a different pathway through
courses, but we take a different pathway through competency depending on
where it is that we want to end up. And this reflects one of
the pressing challenges that were just starting or emerge. And it’s a narrative that’s
actually a little more pronounced than I thought it would be by now. But it’s this idea of
unbundling of the university. And there’s a lot of glee in this. Because especially folks who have
let’s say a venture capital interest, or recent op ed by the
government of Utah about, we need to smash university cartel or
the you know the recognition cartel. I guess if that’s the word. This idea being that universities, as
an integrated and end-to-end system are in for some serious changes. Because that is not going to
be the case going forward. It’s not going to be the case
for a variety of reasons. Because we are going to outsource more and more the functionality
that we are doing. Much like the business community went through an extensive outsourcing
period 20, 25 years ago as they started to pull back to bare-bones minimum. And I think from a university
end, what’s happening is as we unbundle our student recruitment, and as we unbundled some
of our assessment. Because if you look at ASU’s partnership
with Newton, or if you look at some of the organizations or universities
that Pearson has bought in the UK, there is a sense of starting to unbundle
the traditional university relationship with a range of corporate
providers playing a greater role. Now that’s not necessarily a bad
thing, because all us here are sitting on certainly chairs developed
by corporations and laptops developed by corporations. So it’s not an anti-corporate rant. What I’m saying is that the university
structure of the future will be one where we no longer have and
end-to-end integrated system. It will be an ecosystem that’s going
to have a range of different partners and providers that go beyond just the
technology providers we have today that increasingly start to
look at service providers. Organizations like academic
partnerships, organizations like Newton, organizations like 2YOU
that will come in conduct for a university some critical
core functionality elements that a university has, perhaps, not
the vision to build the competency in, or that a university has,
there’s a sudden change in their local marketplace, and it’s
the only way they can get their product to market in a timely fashion. So start thinking ecosystems rather
than end-to-end integrated systems. And at has some level, this is an idea
that’s recently come out is this idea that the new American university,
and this was based on some criticism of Arizona State University, but that
the new American university is going to massive online, and corporate backed. And that was reflected as well
with the recent partnership between Starbucks and ASU as well. ASU has self-declared as, you know,
basically the new American university, and they’ve done some
very innovative things. I don’t know of a president in US
education system that has done, has had a bigger say in influencing
universities than Michael Crow has. Because what they’ve been able to do
with their system has been significant. Agree or disagree with
it, that’s irrelevant. Well it’s not, but for this purpose it’s
irrelevant because they made a big dent in shifting what a university
is and what it looks like. And you start to see more
and more of this kind of complex ecosystem relationship,
where you have ASU that is partnering with Pearson for content, and
Newton for adaptive learning. And you don’t have, the identity of a university is an entirely
different thing than it was. Another model that hasn’t quite gained
the recognition or the attention yet that perhaps it had the potential
to, but it may going forward is activity out of, around competency-based
education. So whether it’s the University
of Wisconsin flexible degree, where you have the opportunity to
basically go out, do some learning in the corporate setting, you
might fill gaps in the university, or just get recognized with it. You can do your entire degree
program exclusively online. Or exclusively competency-based,
you never have to step on to a university campus
if you don’t want to. So that then leaves universities in
this position of how do we innovate. We know we need to innovate,
we see a different landscape, we see that we might lose some
of our core integrated systems. So I’ll just briefly put out 4
possible models that might provide us with some guidance for what
universities are going to become. First of all, integrated. This is not going to be the norm. There will be a few universities, those that perhaps have
particularly visionary leaders, of have a certain amount
of deep pockets. They’ll be able to create the integrated
university system going forward. And this is a little bit like edX model. Which edX goes into, so if you set up,
you join edX in a partnership, you’re, you know, UTAX or HarvardX. But it’s this idea that you innovate
as a system by starting to experiment with these online delivery formats,
but the knowledge stays locally. That’s a big output that
differs from some of the other open online course
providers where the knowledge resides with the corporate entity,
in many cases, there’s some local faculty
involvement, but with that model. So at universities, there’s
that approach that as universities embraced digital
learning interface the face the digital reality, that they start to create
theses innovative spaces that will help to eventually bring the rest of the
university into a digital space. I’ve already mentioned partnership. It’s this outsourcing approach, where
you build in the capacity that you lack. You hire it, or you pay for it. And then there’s another approach,
which I haven’t seen much of. I’m aware of about 3 or 4 universities
that have started to do this now, but where they create separate legal
entities that allow them to move around the constraints of
an existing university. In some cases, the one
organization in Australia, the interest there is once they
move forward with enough momentum and innovation, they can
demonstrate what they’re capable of, that their learning will be pulled back
into the existing university campus. And so, but it’s this idea that we
can’t innovate under the umbrella because there are too many barriers. Too many people that
pushback at innovation. Not everyone sees this
as a crisis situation that requires significant response. And then the 4th one which is
something that quite a fascinating idea. It’s been partnered, done with some
of the online learning organizations, like Embanet that Pearson
purchased, 2YOU, and the academic partnership
that I mentioned. These are systems that will
go to work with university, build their online program, and then that online program will
essentially be the revenue share relationship, where they’ll
each get a part of it. It’s an interesting model,
needless to say. So those are some approaches to
how universities can start thinking about innovation and how either they it
on their own, they do it in partnership, they do it separate, or they do it with an equal arrangement
when an external provider. All right so for the last few slides I
want to turn a little bit to this idea of the future and what this
might mean from a university end. So stop me if you’ve heard this before. That’s it. Actually, I’m not going to
say it you can just read it. Because I’ve already said it so often. So here’s what we’ve done in the past. In the past we’ve had this
idea, of the university. What do we monetize? Like what do we make money
from with our students? So if you have content, curriculum, and
teaching and then you have the learner, and you have the assessment. Now there’s a research element, which is
completely different from all of this. But from the teaching and learning
approach, this was the university. We monetized, often we gave
eventually the publishers. We used to monetize everything here, but
we did give the publishers the ability to monetize the bulk of
the curriculum in the form of textbooks and digital resources. But we still retained control of
monetizing the teaching process and monetizing the assessment process. Now one of the truths I think that
we need to get a better grip on is that what can be duplicated
with limited cost, can’t be monetized in
digital environments. Meaning, if you do a lecture
and it’s recorded, then ideally, that is something that you
don’t need to invest in again. If it’s a good quality recording and
production, it’s easy to duplicate, it cost you pennies, if that, for
each additional person that views it. On the other hand, if you
engage with a group of students in a very rich learning activity,
that’s activity-based, or immersive, then if you have 20 students and 1
instructor, if you’re going to do it with 40 students, you have
to add a second instructor. So a big thing for university leaders
to think about is what is that thing that we can do within a university, that cannot be duplicated
easily, technologically. Because that’s your future
academic value point. Because if it can be easily
duplicated, someone will duplicate it. And so you have to look
at different approaches. So in this case here, this
is the idea that curriculum and content can easily be duplicated. In many cases, some of
the open online courses, and the content that’s now available
with a minimal social layer wrapped around it, provides a limited
opportunity for us to add value. You add the growing interest in MOOCs
and informal learning and so on. We need to start thinking about where
is our monetization value point. And I’ll emphasize that whereas
we used to monetize the content and the teaching process, going forward
we’re going to monetize the gaps in knowledge based on
the competency model. Or we’ll monetize the relationship
between workplace learning, and what they already know
with regard to a formal degree, or some kind of formal type of
credentialing or recognition. So the teaching, we can’t monetize that. We used to. When MIT first did their open
courseware initiative in 2003 a lot of folks were saying,
“Well that’s crazy. I mean, you’re giving
away your content.” But MIT made the argument, “Well no it’s
the MIT experience that people want. The content isn’t our
economic value point.” But then all of the sudden,
MOOCs come along and all of a sudden the practice
of teaching, broadly. I mean it’s not necessarily
the best practice when you look at a talking head. But still the practice of teaching
broadly reflects what is going on, or what happens in a lot
of university classrooms. Unless you’ve got a small classroom
of 20 students to 1 faculty member. A lot of lecture halls. The MOOC experience is about
as good as what you get there. And so suddenly we can’t
monetize content because it’s free and open with the range of courses. We can’t monetize teaching. And that leaves us really with monetizing immersive
learning experiences, as well as rich assessment processes
and the value layers that we add around filling knowledge
gap and related elements. I’ll stop there for questions. Or for glazes and stares. Any questions or comments? Disagreements? Yes I think there are
a few mics here, so.>>You’ve got to get
to a mic [inaudible].>>So as you look at a place like Penn
State with this massive infrastructure and thinking, okay, if we’re only going to monetizing these immersive
experiences, what do you do with all of the brick-and-mortar, and all the
people, and all those sorts of things if you’re going to be
sustainable and 20 years?>>Well, I think of fairness. It’s like anything else
it’s Schumpeter’s notion of creative destruction, that the
willingness to early recognize that a landscape changes, is
changing, and to respond to it in a reasonably innovative way,
puts you, in some degree in charge of your own fate at a way that you
perhaps haven’t been able to do if you were waiting for
someone else to do that to you. So first of all, I don’t think
physical spaces are going away. And I don’t think physical
spaces are irrelevant. In fact, MOOCs done well
actually are the best support for an existing university. Because you have faculty members
at Harvard, or at Penn State, or at Stanford that are
reaching out to the world. Doing what academics or professors do. And you’re building the profile and
the identity of a local university. So it’s not that the, but my who
argument was that the immersiveness of on campus experiences is monetizable. The depth of learning that adds
a layer to what we currently do. That instead of just blanket assessment
by course, but actually assesses you by individual competencies. Those are the kind of things
that I think are going to be significant going forward. I had this conversation earlier and
I mentioned that in the late 90s when online conferences
started gaining in prominence, there was this big section,
or big declaration that conferences were going to be dead. We were living in the
golden age of conferences. I remember a colleague telling
me like, this is in the late 90s, says we’re in the final you know
twilight years of conferencing. It’s you know where we’re just
going to do everything online. But there’s value in face-to-face. There’s value for those of you that
came here internationally and meeting with some of the colleagues that
you don’t have when you’re online. So I see much of what’s happening in
online not as a replacement necessarily to universities, but augmentation because we’ve seen structural
economic shifts, in society and in higher education
that are altering the way in which we need and want to learn. So after decades of what I would call
a demand side buildup in learning needs that the university hasn’t
responded to well by staying focused on the sequential students, the
17 to 22, 23-year-old students. To suddenly now universities realize, wait a second there’s you know
these old people need learning too. And so suddenly that’s the
landscape that is starting to emerge is it’s this much more
enriching and a deeper relationship, that universities that are proactive
will have with their communities or with their geographic regions.>>Thank you.>>George if it’s okay I’m going
to take one from our online and then we’ll try to
get around to the rest.>>Actually online. That’s no good [laughter]. You know I agree, I don’t
think it will ever catch on.>>A question here is about, it says in
one of the first slides you presented, it said that college enrollment
is increasing, but traditional, I think my on ground is decreasing. Can you describe that phenomenon? What do you mean by total
enrollments online are decreasing? Are you referring to the online
space as where the increases are?>>Okay, I hope I didn’t
say that because globally at least higher education as a whole
is going to continue to increase for at least in the foreseeable future. I think we’re in the range of 200 million learners,
or in university globally. Which will continue to increase. A lot of regions that have
local demographic transitions, which has resulted in somewhat
of a decline in enrollment in certain regions, those areas have
turned heavily to international students to fill some of those gaps. So just to clarify, maybe
I’ll have to watch the video, but to clarify that online
learning is growing rapidly. In fact it’s the fastest. Digital learning let’s put it that way. Digital learning at both corporate,
university, and I guess 3, K-12 sector is growing more rapidly than any other aspect
of the education sector. The education industry, though
in terms of number of enrollment or student is broadly
growing internationally. There are regions certainly
some European countries, Canada and the US face
a bit of it as well. Where there’s a bit of a population
plateauing, which means we’re drawing on international students
to fill some those gaps. But overall, there is not a decrease
for enrollment in universities.>>Okay, good. Thank you. Let me go back to David,
because I know he had a question.>>So with, there’s a lot of
demands and there’s a lot of things that are happening in terms of looking
at learning outcomes for students. I’m just wondering if you think
that there may be different types of institutions that may emerge. Are you looking at one
type of university, that we’re going to have
lots of students? Or do you think there will be
room for corporate universities, universities for markets and things? I’m just curious what you
think that will evolve into.>>Yeah I don’t think that’s a settled
answer yet for several reasons. Probably the most pronounced is
that it’s not a foregone conclusion. A lot of what will happen for
universities next, will be determined by the vision that university presidents
and university leadership is going to drive in the next several years. So I can certainly see if you have
a university where you know it’s like you see in World Campus, which
has what been around now since the 90s?>>Ninety-eight.>>So it’s been around since the 90s. I mean, there’s an example
of a visionary project that was initiated that’s had e
a long-term net positive impact on Penn State as a system. I think you probably still
have the largest number of instructional designers per capita
than probably any system in the US. And so those are the kind of thing
that it’s not a foregone conclusion that we’re going to have the
mega-university, or that we’re going to have a series of specialized
university systems. A lot of it will be based on the vision
that’s created by university leadership as they engage with the
various stakeholders. The reason that MOOCs picked
up attention so quickly, as I mentioned earlier is that there
was a growing demand for learning. And yet the university wasn’t
reflecting those demographic and work related shifts. We entered a knowledge era in the last
30 plus years and in that process, that means like if I want to learn
about social network analysis, I can pick up a book at a bookstore
and read, but where can I take a course of social network analysis? Well, sure I could take a summer school
event, but that’s going to be very much and academic experience,
but I might not want that. On the other hand, if somebody runs
a MOOC on social network analysis. I have access to that knowledge. I need that because I’m
interested in it. I see it in the world around
me, but universities fail to realize that emerging demographic. So the response to your
question, specifically, would be if university leaders
stay close to the change pressures, track the architecture of
knowledge and how that’s changing, and the various requirements of
stakeholders around knowledge, and respond to that in a way that
preserves the structure and integrity of the university, but also the
needs and relevance of the learners, I think universities have the potential,
some at least, have the potential of being tightly integrated
societal systems that are more critical
than they’ve ever been.>>I have a question. I’m president of a community college
and relative to this construct that you have laid out for universities, over 40% of America’s higher education
enrollments are from community college over 12 million students are
community college students. And have a great impact obviously
on today’s higher education system and the future of higher ed. So how do community colleges
fit into this relative to what how universities
are going to have to adjust and how we’re going to have to adjust? Is it in the same way? Or do you see it a little differently. Have you looked at that at all?>>Well it’s a great question, and
I’m perhaps not the best person to answer it, but the way that I see
it, community colleges are critical, specifically to local economies. That one of the big impacts
of community colleges. I mean I taught at [inaudible]
College was where I started teaching which was a 2-year college system. And what happens in a community college
is very different from what happens, obviously, on a university campus. And the people that you know are
involved in those systems, quite often, even more so than in
universities, these are first in family higher education participants. And that means that someone
who graduates from a community college
often graduates a family. Somebody who graduates from a
university, they may just be well mom and dad already graduated so I’m just. So from what I saw, at least
when I was in the college system and that’s been probably
about 15 years now. That may change somewhat, but that was
really successful community college graduate meant the prospect
of a successful family, in many ways, economically. So I think from that end
there’s a real pressure, which is and one of the things. I was at an event last year. It was a summit we were looking
at the future of the university. And I had one person after another stand
up and say, “Universities are dying, universities are dying,
universities are dying. And so I finally had
my chance to say my bit and my argument was that
you’re all wrong. We’re going to see more universities
in the next decade or 2, not less. And we’re not going to see, regionally,
yeah, there’s going to pockets of universities or smaller
systems that might have to reorganize for-profits are
already being hit quite hard. But the state system. The relationship between a
higher education institution and the economic prosperity
of a region is a tight one. Which means if you lose
your local state university, or if you lose a community college
you take an enormous economic blow. And there’s no way that online
providers are going to be able to duplicate what happens in
a community college classroom. There’s no way that an online state
university can fully replace what happens physically on campus. Whether it’s in terms of
knowledge or knowledge growth. I read an article recently and I’m
not sure that I 100% agree with it, but it was a provocative argument
that stated basically that Detroit if it would have had a large
research-intensive university, Detroit could have survived. You know, if they had a private,
you know that was their argument. And I thought well that it’s
interesting and it’s potentially. I mean it’s hard to do
an AB test, right. Let’s take a way that university, wait
a generation, see if they’re bankrupt. But that idea, I think
resonates with us. That if you want to be an innovative
region, if you want to be a space that contributes to the knowledge
economy, which as I mentioned in the stats I showed earlier in terms
of the percentage of the economy, that is knowledge-oriented, if that’s
the type of economy you want to be, you need more not less universities. So the online medium is not going
to necessarily displace universities and certainly not community colleges,
which have always been more hands-on. But I do think it will require
college and university leaders to do a better job of articulating
the valuable role they play within those districts. And so that’s one thing universities
haven’t done terribly well in the past. They haven’t recognized you know that
there’s a reason why IBM doesn’t wait for people to come knocking their door. Right you have to go out and project
an image and maintain that image. So I think that’s something
that university leaders and community college organizations
will need to get a better grasp on.>>Thank you George I’m
having the impression that we have all the
inquiry-based people over here and we need some over there. Were there some questions we can get to?>>So I was listening to the idea
and I’ve heard this argument before about how online learning would sort
of unbundle the education system. And I wonder that if online learning
becomes a way of augmenting education and really concretizing learning
experiences in tangible ways, it follows that this type of a
system would favor those with time. And so those people who have less
means and therefore less time to develop a collection of these type of
competencies would be at a disadvantage because they would have
less time for augmentation. So I wonder to what extent folks have
examined the unintended consequences of unbundling and monetizing
these types of experiences for disadvantaged students.>>That’s a great question
for which I have no answer. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not going
to talk at you for a while [laughter]. No you’re absolutely right
because that’s one element, and especially in digital environments, the experience of disadvantaged
students, or underrepresented in digital environments
typically is negative. It adds yet another barrier
to structural challenges that underrepresented students face. So universities, especially
those that are the state systems, that have a mandate to a state,
or a mandate to a region, they have to think very hard about
how are you going to make sure that as you become digital. And like I said, in my own
life, I can’t see a point where the digital game slows for me. I can’t see a point where the
digital games slows society. You know we’re going to be more
digital next year than we are this year and that will just keep being the case. Which means that we need to increase
our understanding of the experiences of underrepresented students
in digital environment. Why do they fail disproportionately
in those environments than do students who don’t come from an underrepresented
or a disadvantaged background? But that’s an area of research
that can reasonably undeveloped. Whereas underrepresented student
population is reasonably well known underrepresented students in digital
environments has not been extensively researched, but it’s certainly
an important area to look at.>>To that point. Perhaps the latency that you talked
about can in fact be leveraged to help the underrepresented.>>See and that’s the
difficulty here, I agree. I would like it to be. Just like I would like the online medium
to help more students be successful, that previously have not been
able to access higher education. Unfortunately, the systemic barriers
that underrepresented students face, suggest that it will actually
have the opposite effect. That digital learning will actually
create a bigger divide on some levels. Students that come from a background
that reflects what we would now define as an underrepresented
population, don’t have some of the support structures
that are often needed. Or the skills that are needed. So we don’t just need to
offer online learning, we have to bring our students along with
us as we move toward digital learning. I’ve had project that I’ve tried
where I’ve experimented online with different kinds of
approaches to teaching and learning that have been horrible failures
because I thought of something that I thought was clever, but it
didn’t match the life experiences and the life circumstances
of those learners. And I’m a little concerned as we start
to all jump on an innovation bandwagon that we become too clever for students. And I don’t mean too smart
that’s a very different thing. I mean that we’re trying to get the
right media play and do the right thing that gets us the right recognition,
but unfortunately doesn’t resonate with the very real contextual
needs that students face. Particularly, the underrepresented
student. So when I talk about
latent knowledge activation, there’s a certain type of
proficiency as learner. You have to have a degree of
confidence that allows you to say, “Hey I’ve learned this about statistics. That putting that out requires a
certain type of personality to do that. So I can say, “Hey let’s all share
our knowledge” and engage around that. But there may be individual who
culturally, or whatever find that to be uncomfortable to do. They many not have the particular
affective skills, or attributes, if you will, that would
allow them to that well. So I’m always cautious about thinking about how will this next great idea
help underrepresented students. Because the issue of underrepresented
students is not we haven’t given you a great idea to look at. It’s that we haven’t spent enough
time equalizing the life circumstances that enable you to be
an equal participant.>>Okay, I’ve got an online question. If you don’t mind we’ll take one here. It’s a great question
because it’s right up the zone of where our program
for IELOL is oriented. It says, “George, in your opinion, what kinds of leadership qualities
will be needed and what kind of decisions will be needed in
order to make existing universities, like Penn State remain
competitive in the new paradigm.>>That is a great question. See these kind of questions I
always find a little unnerving because I’ll answer it, but
keep in mind, I’m full of crap. And so I just want to
make sure you’re clear. Because the solution to Penn
State exists in Penn State. The opportunities for
Penn State are here. You understand your culture, you
understand your student population. I don’t. I’m an outsider that I
mean I’ve had some affiliation with Penn State over the last several
years that I very much enjoyed. But an external expert can’t
solve local, contextual problems. And it’s not a problem. I know that it wasn’t
framed as a problem. But I just want to state that as
a bit of a background to recognize that the answer exists within Penn State to whatever opportunities
you want to embrace. But I’ll talk generically about
leadership in a digital network age. I think, traditionally, or
even historically we’ve learn to organize through organizations. Whether that organization was a church, or whether that organization
was our place of business, or religious facility,
or whatever it was. But we organized through organizations. And we also learned to
give heavy respect to certain positions
within organizations. What’s happened now though,
is as we shifted to networks. In this society we have. You see this every time somebody tries
to conceal something that they did that was particularly stupid. Let’s say randomly, oh I
don’t know I take a picture of myself wearing underwear
and I tweet it to bunch of people my last name
is Wiener [laughter]. So if you do these kind of
things, it has an impact. And you can’t, you know, you can’t
control what happens in networks. So in a network system it’s
tough to be a controlling person because you’ll always lose. So instead networks require new
ways of thinking about leadership. So suddenly instead of
telling people what to do. You have to start thinking about
nudging people in directions that you think are critical. Or you have to start looking
at different approaches for consultative leadership. Or you have to look at
models of shared leadership. Probably most critically, I
think a leader has to be able to articulate a compelling vision. Is you have to be able to say,
this is where we are today. I’ve talked to all of our stakeholders, they agree that this is the
landscape, or somewhat agree. And then to put forward a vision
that people can get behind. Because it’s not that, higher education
doesn’t suffer from lack of ideas. What higher education, I think suffers
from sometimes is a lack of leaders who are willing to take good ideas,
articulate them well, get them moving, and position it in such a way that
other people start to see themselves as agents in the change process. So that they get in behind the leader
and start to make things happen that the leader might not
even have conceived yet. But again, these are local questions
that an external expert that answers, the only time you pay people a lot for
that is if they’re a consulting agency. And then you can easily get
50 or 60 grand out of the deal and still get a worse answer.>>But their laptops almost always work. Okay, so where were we>>Have you seen their speaking budget?>>Hi, is this working? Can you hear me? Hi.>>Oh there we. Hello.>>Yeah. Some of the latest research
on how to approach this topic of online learners, particularly
online learners from different socioeconomic strata,
for example, at an institution such as ours whose basic
founding philosophy was to provide access for such students. We are in a for-profit, not that all for-profits are the
same, but particularly ours. Some of the latest research that’s on the real cutting edge is this
predictive analytic movement. Of really taking a look at sort
of the footprint of the student through the lifecycle of your
program or of the degree. To see where the fall
down is more apt to occur and to do just-in-time
interventions, in the way of counseling, in the way of shifting
sequences of courses. To have institutions of higher ed
assumed more of that responsibility for success of the student,
rather than to blame or point out that it’s the student’s fault
because they come from this. You know that can be very
self-fulfilling prophecy. And the other thing for this young
lady talking about the lack of time, kind of the contraction of time. Sometimes the opposite is true, which is that online learning can
enable more control of one’s time by virtue the fact that all of
online learning, not all of it, but most commonly it’s asynchronous. Which means you can do it in the morning
before you get dressed to go to work, you can do it when you come home. You can do it when your kids are asleep. So just pointing out those 2 points.>>Sure so point 1, yes. Predictive analytics are valuable. I think we need to think more. Let’s put it this way. The role of analytics and
I’ve been very involved with learning analytics
over the last 5 years. And I recently did a paper for
the Australian government it’s on the [inaudible] for learning
and analytics research website. It was looking at how to increase
the productivity and effectiveness of national higher education systems
and specifically for folks in Australia. So I have an affinity for the
learning analytics community. But learning analytics do
something quite specific. And that’s typically
they give us the ability to see a situation in different ways. They don’t solve the situation,
and they rarely provide answers. Quite often they provide more focused
questions and so I think when I look at predictive analytics and
some of those opportunities, it’s important to recognize the
limitations of predictive models. And it’s important to recognize
contextual factors that play in that are often overlooked
by these predictive models. But, absolutely. I think we need to take advantage
of anything we can in terms of data, anything we can in terms of the
digital trails that students leave. If we can say students who exhibit these
patterns of behavior, this is something that Rio Salado says by day 8
they can tell with you know 70, 80% accuracy rate, whether or
not a student will pass a course. That’s an interesting thing. It’s an interesting predictive model. But my question always is, that is
useless to me until I am enabled with an intervention or until
I’m enabled with a solution. Because telling me the world sucks
doesn’t make me feel so good, you know, give me something I can do to
be a partner in the solution. But you know so that’s point 1. The second point that I
completely forgot was?>>Control of time.>>I wanted to tell you
that I’m that Rio school.>>Oh are you [applause]?>>[Laughter] Aren’t you glad
you didn’t say anything bad. You said something good.>>Well, why would I say anything bad about a system using
predictive analytics? Anyway sorry.>>Time management the second one.>>Okay yeah. So you’re absolutely
right that there are some, learning the way we have
done traditionally. And this is one of the
drawbacks with much of the literature on online learning. There’s been just a mess of comparative
studies that try to compare on campus or face-to-face learning
with online learning. And it’s very hard to
compare huge things. It’s like comparing you know,
is flying or driving better. Well, probably depends
on where you want to go and how quick you want to get there. But there are very different systems. You can’t compare them at that big
of a level, but it is true that much of the literature, initially,
folks in online learning as asynchronous interactions,
which are very good for students who are self-regulated
and self-motivated. Unfortunately and this is especially
the case with underrepresented students who face barriers, the development of
social cohesion and the development of social support system that can often
be very motivating like for student in a cohort, that can be the difference
between passing a course or not passing. Simply because of your persistent. Yes?>>Hi, I don’t want to beat this
dead horse, but I do have some.>>I like dead horses.>>Another question to add in
the general area, but anyway. My interest, I mean, and we’re dealing
now with the fallout of you know, No Child Left Behind in
the public school system. So how is public school going to
have to change to support this? Because I don’t think that it’s
something that you pop out a K-12 and you jump into this and
are successful necessarily. And I think we’re seeing that
now, regardless of whether you’re in a you know an underprivileged
population or not. And so I’m just interested in how,
perhaps, higher ed can work with K-12 or how is K-12 going to have to change to support this different
way of learning?>>I don’t spend much
of my time in K-12. So that a preemptive comment,
but one of the examples. Not necessarily K-12, so in our
case probably 9-12 would be the more suitable target. So we just initiated a MOOC
that we’ll be running in May. It’s an engineering MOOC
where we’re looking at that as a college preparation MOOC for
students who are still in high school. So giving them the basic math skills and
of some of the, just help prepare them for what university will be like. So those are the kinds of activities. I think there are a range
of opportunities. There’s, for universities in particular,
we should be thinking boundary-less. We should be thinking reaching into
high schools to connect with students, and give them opportunities to prepare. We should be thinking connections
into the corporate landscape in a way that we’re not doing yet. But we should be much more
seamless in those life transitions. But right now, universities,
it’s almost like you know, it marks our lives so clearly. And it really should make them very
fluid in those different spaces. So just broadly, saying yes. Universities need to think
differently about their relationship, to in my case I would
say the 9-12 sector. But I’ve been involved with universities
in the past that have summer camps and robotic camps where they’ll
bring in students from grades 7 and 8 and even younger to bring them
into that experience as well.>>We probably have time for one more
question, so [inaudible] I’m going to switch over to this
just to balance things out.>>Well, I don’t know that this
is the last question you want to end on, but it might be. You’ve identified a series
of gaps and you’ve indicated where we monetize those gaps. And you’ve indicated where you think
that the next set of gaps is going to be and how those will be monetized. What happens after they’re monetized?>>So first of all, monetization, sometimes in a university context
it has some negative connotations. So monetization, perhaps
another way to put it if I wanted to be more thoughtful would be to
say that those gaps are opportunities for universities to add value
to the lives of learners. And so broadly speaking, if I was to
say if a student can come to us and say, “I volunteered over the summer.” And another student, let’s call
him George comes in and says, “I played Xbox over summer.” Those 2 students should be treated
differently by the university and that adds an enormous
value layer to the student that makes different choices
in some of those areas. I mean for all we know, maybe my
Xbox actually positions me very well for you know a degree in
video game programming. But anyway I’m just saying those
are the kind of things that we want to talk about, what is the value
that we add to the lives of learners that learners are willing to provide
resources to the university for. And right now we’ve lost that transition
or that transaction on content. We’ve somewhat lost it around
teaching because MOOCs and that, a lot of MOOC takers, they’re
taking it say for stats courses that you might be failing at your local
university, but you can do a quick brush up on Coursera and rewind until you
get this one irritating concept right. So I think those are the kinds of
things that are going to be hard for us to have students to say, “Yeah, I’m
willing to pay for that experience.” So what comes next after this? I really think there’s 2 things that
have to happen in the university sector in the next while, particularly
for generating value for students. One is we have to get
better at identifying, I’ve called this the
personal knowledge graph. But this is where we begin to create
an articulation what a student knows. That preferably the student should own. But it’s what do they know? What have they done? What is their profile? Much like Facebook gives me a profile of I’ve shared these
images and I’ve done that. As I said earlier, we need that
knowledge graph for individuals. The second thing that we need
to do is move our curriculum to something that is adaptive. Or move our content to
something that’s adaptive. And that means that when I come in and I’ve spent my summer doing volunteer
work, and I’ve worked in the evenings and I have a certain profile of
knowledge that I’ve developed. That the University provides
learning that is relevant to me. Now that doesn’t mean that they
just provide knowledge gaps, because university is as much
an ontological experience as it is an epistemological experience. So we also need to look at
developing the whole person. We need to look at constructing our
identity and how we see ourselves, and how we see others in
relation to ourselves. So those are a range of things that we
certainly need to engage in as well. But beyond that, I think those are the 2
biggest opportunities universities have to contribute back to
the lives of learners. That’s not exclusively defined
by an economic relationship. [ Applause ]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *