The Role of the Educator and Institution in a Changing Educational Landscape
In response to my post on collaborative spaces, Gina Minks over at Adventures in Corporate Education posted her thoughts on what she sees are some issues with my argument. I posted an initial response as a comment, but wanted to follow up with further elaboration here.
The main question her post brought me to consider is that of the role and purpose of institutions in an age of increasingly open access to course materials, portability of information, and hyperconnected learners. Significantly too though is the notion of the digital divide and how to accommodate the needs of learners with limited access to resources and technology.
Background
Projects like the Open Courseware initiative, Wikieducator, and to a fair degree iTunes U as well, have all begun to demonstrate a new manner of course delivery in which materials and curricula are openly shared, freely adaptable and available to any learner who cares to explore them.
Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08), offered out of the University of Manitoba, is another example of this – and has been implemented on a massive scale. At least at the outset of the course there were 2,200 enrollments – with the majority being informal.
Meanwhile other initiatives such as the Social Media Classroom have emerged as collaborative endeavors in which groups of educators from across the international sector work together to develop a curriculum that is independent of any institution.
Fundamental Questions
In some regards the entire notion of what education is seems to be in a state of flux, with the traditional framework of institutions, universities, educators and learners suddenly brought into question, and their roles in a state of renegotiation.
This leads to very practical questions:
If, in this changing landscape:
- Content and course materials are no longer necessarily something to be owned and hoarded, but freely and openly shared;
- Curricula is no longer centrally organised and dictated, but instead contextually interpreted and adapted;
- Enrollment is no longer controlled, but instead open to all ages, levels of experience or existing knowledge, and geographical regions;
- Information no longer flows one-directionally from an expert to a novice, but is instead discussed, interpreted and negotiated by a network of its participants…
…what is the role and fate to be for a system of learning that is founded on the former tenets?
Having said that, what unique experience is afforded to students that choose to formally enroll? What are they paying for?
A Facilitator of Connections
One might argue that the awarding of recognised degrees upon completion of years of rigorous assessment and review is a key role that institutions and universities will continue to hold in a new paradigm (if it can indeed be called one); and it most certainly is. I would argue, though, that this is just a tiny part of the overall equation, and that an even greater and more significant role than is in the facilitation of connections.
As discussed early on in CCK08, we have a need to address several key points during the learning process, including
- We have a need to externalise;
- We have a need for frameworks or structures for sense-making;
- We have a need to socialise and negotiate around knowledge;
For the individual learner, then, the social element and presence of other learners with whom to interact is of critical significance. So too is access to informed, expert nodes to act as pathways through key concepts in the subject matter. Certainly groups of learners might seek to come together independent of formal education and undertake a subject on their own, however with universities and schools recognised as institutions of learning, prospective students stand a far greater chance of discovering valuable nodes or connections there than on their own.
Furthermore, many universities and institutions maintain close ties to industry that the average individual just won’t have developed. Some departments will, for example, bring in guest speakers from the private sector to discuss their real-world experience and thus add a practical element to theoretical discussions. Certainly these events can be recorded and made available online along with other course materials, however this arguably pales in comparison to sitting in the same room in-person and having the opportunity to ask them questions.
Additionally there is the notion of resources and infrastructure. There is a tremendous difference between reading and discussing a section on chemistry experiments – or watching a video clip – and having access to a laboratory within which to actually conduct them yourself, as well as interact with expert technicians skilled in their use. Institutions and universities are in a position to offer these sorts of opportunities to formally enrolled, paying students; the average individual is not.
Learning Design
The role of the educator in this landscape, then, becomes one of guide, informed node, more granular facilitator of connections; perhaps even translator and moderator of discussions. The significance of this lay in the notion that organising one’s own individual learning experience is a very different matter to overseeing the learning experiences of an entire cohort of students. As such it requires a much different, more tactical approach.
Universities as Learning Bazaars
To adapt Eric Raymond’s seminal work on open source software development, the new landscape of learning in formal education may begin to resemble a bazaar more than a cathedral.
Here learners can congregate in a seemingly chaotic marketplace full of different perspectives and personal learning objectives, yet in which the essential processes of negotiation around knowledge, and externalising can occur.
As with most FOSS projects though, the presence of a central body to help guide the process is important in ensuring that adequate cohesion and cooperativity exists amidst the populous of independent agents, while at the same time recogising the importance of autonomy and room for exploration.
Whilst I think these are all very good points, I think there is one overriding factor that will preserve the relevance of Universities. There is an enormous social cache in a University Qualification. It is a means of measuring (accurately or not) that has importance in the employment market. There is nothing in more informal education methods at this time that can easily replace this means of measuring for employers.
Hi Roz!
Long time no see
Hope things are well.
Yes that’s quite true. At the end of the day there are sectors for whom the degree is an essential requirement to proving evidence of experience. It gets your foot in the door as they say.
At the same time I think it’s fair to say that not every who attends uni does so for an intended career path. Some do so for the love of learning. So the challenge in learning design I think will be how to ensure learners walk away with a solid grasp of key concepts (which industry expects and looks for in the hiring processes) while still affording them sufficient flexibility to take ownership over their own learning experiences.
Cheers,
Mike
I read your article with interest.
It’s important to reflect on the role of educator and educational institutions such as universities and colleges.
I suppose that universities still play an important role in its accreditation of the courses and employment of professionals (professors, instructors, designers etc.) who would continue to serve the learners. I also think that there is a need to inverting the pyramid of hierarchical structure in the learners could be at the peak of the pyramid upon which all educational institutions and their infrastructure, professionals, technology and networks are means to support both education and learning.
This could be a huge challenge to both the educational institutions, teaching and supporting professionals, networks and society. In this connection, both formal and informal education becomes the pillar of every individual and network, with the ultimate goal of serving the needs of the individuals and society.
My questions is: Do you think this would happen?
[...] October 23, 2008 · No Comments http://techticker.net/2008/10/22/the-role-of-the-educator-and-institution-in-a-changing-educational-... [...]
Hi Sui Fai,
Thanks for the thoughts. At the best of times any change in higher education is a very slow one. This particular change would involve/require a fundamental shift in culture and in a sense the displacement of the educator from their traditional position at the top of the hierarchy. This makes it even more of an issue – some might call it a threat in fact – and one that is likely to be vehemently opposed by instructivists.
So to be realistic, when you ask if I think this will happen, my response is “only very slowly, and most likely in pockets.”
I imagine that some educators will see the logic in the model and start to experiment with its implementation (if they haven’t already done so); but they’ll almost certainly be the exceptions to the rule.
Any real systemic change is going to require a lot of time and discussion.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your response. I agree with your views taht such change will only happen slowly. I have been a teacher since 1985, and have experienced a lot of changes in teaching and learning practices during the last 28 years. Since 2000, I have been doing on-the-job training whereas there are practically no physical classes as such as the Universities. I started with zero student to a few hundreds for the past years. What I found was a fundamental shift in the learning paradigm, where learning is the key to education, rather than teaching. I know my idealogy will be vehemently opposed by other instructivists, as well as other professional teachers, where they would feel threatened or might be worried that they would lose their jobs. Imagine, if everyone is learning on their own, what is the role of the teacher? I shared such feelings in 2000, but has now been totally convinced that such thing would only happen if teachers are unwilling to accept and adapt to changes. That is there is still an important role for every teacher to play, only that teachers must be flexible and proactive in meeting the learner’s needs. In other words, I think best practice in teaching is based on a learner centred approach, where learner’s needs must come first. Without learners, why employ teachers? And without teachers, who would be guiding the learners (especially the kids and teenagers) the “right” values? So, in summary, teachers must share their experience and knowledge with learners by putting learner first. Remember, at some time, we were the learners, did we learn from our teachers? For me, I must admit that I learn best from those teachers who are empathetic, and willing to understand my needs. These are just my personal reflections, but I hope other teachers could understand why we are moving in such directions – towards a learner centred model of teaching and learning. Is teaching still a noble profession? What do you see will be the future of teachers? With renewed thanks.
[...] http://techticker.net/2008/10/22/the-role-of-the-educator-and-institution-in-a-changing-educational-... [...]
Continuing on my previous train of thought, I think that change will happen slowly not simply because of reluctance or resistance, but also because of the unexplored nature of the landscape.
If most educators are accustomed to only certain ways of doing things – be that instructivist lectures or otherwise – acclimating to a prospect and/or need for change is only one part of the equation. Equally important is realising where to go next – not just in terms of where the see themselves in a new paradigm, but where they want to be; and therefore what the next indicated step is in their professional development.
If Connectivism stresses that learners interpret knowledge based upon their own context, surely this would apply to educators as well, since they would be grappling with a very new concept in their own right – and indeed becoming a learner themselves.
As far as teachers feeling threatened by changes of this nature, I can understand where their concerns lay. At the same time though I think a new learning landscape in the sense we’re talking about here does not eliminate the need for teachers, it merely changes the nature of their place within it.
And for that matter, as George and Stephen have shown, instruction and lectures can and are still delivered in distributed, open courses. It just so happens that some times the teachers never know who is benefiting from their lectures.
I for one watched many of Stephen’s recordings prior to engaging with CCK08, and closely followed George’s blog posts. To me the result of the experience was very similar to a mass lecture in which the instructor is unable to engage directly with each individual student. Despite a lack of immediate external/social connection I was still able to gain a better appreciation of the concept or idea being discussed, and therefore to make conceptual connections that had not previously occurred to me.
You mentioned the importance of teachers remembering they were students once. I think it’s critical to keep this notion in the present tense – that educators are still students and still learners. By viewing ourselves as both educators AND learners our perspective on our place within the landscape changes drastically, as does our relationship with other students.
You asked “Is teaching still a noble profession?” My answer is a resounding Yes! So too is my optimism for the future of the role of teachers in learning – I just think it’s destined to change and adapt, as we all do to changes in our circumstances and conditions.
Cheers,
Mike
Teachers create their own relevancy. If they believe they have a gift for teaching – that they are Michelangelo discerning the David in the block of marble with the skill to chip away the rough edges until the world can actually be moved the masterpiece – those teachers will have students making pilgrimages to study at their feet.
One of the differences in our culture is the idea that people can make a decision on their own to become a teacher. A tribal model would be to have the community gather and make a decision that the community required a teacher. If so, the tribal elders would decide who amongst the tribe had the necessary combination of characteristics to be the teacher and that person would be sent out by the tribe to be prepared. Sometimes a small village is willing to invest quite heavily into the preparation of their teacher – sending their future teacher to an A level educational institution in a foreign land to get the best training available.
It’s easier to think maybe I made the wrong choice than it is to think that the elders in my tribe made the wrong choice. People who think they can be replaced by a computer lack the belief that they have a calling.
[...] 25, 2008 · No Comments Hi Mike, http://techticker.net/2008/10/22/the-role-of-the-educator-and-institution-in-a-changing-educational-... Thanks for your valuable insights. I agree with you that educators are still students and still [...]
Thanks for your valuable insights. I agree with you that educators are still students and still learners. I have posted my full response on the role of learners on my blog:http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com
Cheers.
John
Hello everyone, I certainly agree that teachers are going to have to become more and more flexible and attuned to learners needs. But the tension & problems will come when the flexibility of the teacher collides with the inflexibility of educational institutional policies and processes. As teachers, how do you feel we can deal with that?
Leave your response!
Additional comments powered by BackType
Subscription Options:
Recent Posts
Archives
Recent Comments
Categories
Me @ Other Sites
Tags
Most Commented
Meta
Shared under CC-BY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Support Open Education
Switch to our mobile site
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia theme by Michael Hutagalung