Main Nav

Non necessariamente. MOOCs would not be possible without the technological component that undergirds them. While for a technology association to guide its members to register the pedagogical, not to mention social and economic, drivers that help to shape MOOCs, or why distance education (ago old) is now the talk of the town, broadens discussions, to have to choose between whether it is "technology," "pedagogy" or "social or economic" as a single driving factor might still be sifting through the trees at the neglect of the forest. It is all of the above, and more. Would it be better to strive for the entire calculus (for it is not simple math either) that brings these and other factors into a dynamic relationship within higher education that CIOs and IT organizations are expected to at once lead and support? Grazie! Tracy

Comments

Message from luikart.7@osu.edu

There is an interesting article in the December 2012 issue of the Communications of the ACM titled "In the Year of Disruptive Education" that speaks to this topic. You can find it here: http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/12/157884-in-the-year-of-disruptive-educ ation/fulltext Best Regards, Rob Robert B. Luikart Chief Information Officer OSU College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences 216 Kottman Hall 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210-1044 Office: 614.292.4774 http://cfaes.osu.edu/ On 2/18/13 12:01 PM, "Luke Fernandez" wrote: >Agreed. I phrased my question badly. > >Technology of course plays a role in change. But when we use >sentences like "technology is disruptive" we risk conferring more >agency on technology than it really has and we eclipse all of the >other vectors that drive change. The point is not to be reductive. > >I guess I'm asking whether we're good at that or not. And whether the >colloquial use of Clayton Christensen's term, and higher ed's >discussion about MOOCs encourages reductionist thinking. The platform >to deliver a MOOC has, after all, been around for at least the last >ten years. And versions of the MOOC existed much earlier when schools >started broadcasting courses over the radio in the 1920s. But they've >only now become popular. Is that popularity really mostly a function >of 'disruptive' technology? Or is it something (manythings?) else >again? > >Luke >itintheuniversity.blogspot.com > >
Jack - Nice response and important points!  I think your description of thinking differently about transcripts is important  -
Theresa


Tracy thanks for the voice of wisdom. I agree. We depend so much on the value of the degrees we confer. And that degree which has been highly dependent upon credit hours that we control is in jeopardy because of the changing definition of “credit”. Our primary customer, the corporate employers, just want us to provide a filter that they can rely on to focus their attention on worthy recruits. We have been a trusted filter, but they just want successful employees, so we have to stay ahead of that process. Reevaluating transcripts is a very good idea. We really do have to be open to change, and some of our leaders realize this and they seem to coming to IT more and more for advice.

 

Greg Smith

Chief Information Officer

Missouri University of Science and Technology - www.mst.edu

 

From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tracy Mitrano
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:54 AM
To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [CIO] what disruption really means (and how to use the word when talking about MOOCs)

 

I agree with these thread that call for deep and serious reflection within higher education about credentials and the process of credentialing ... and would add to those thoughts how imperative it is that traditional, not-for-profit higher education take the proverbial bull by the horns and assume collective (not competitive, institution-individualistic) leadership in this area going forward.   

 

This challenge is a true test of leadership within our colleges and universities and among our associations, with the support of visionary boards and board members.  I strongly suspect that if we don't move forward in this direction, for ourselves, by ourselves and with ourselves (yes, Lincoln ...), what we do now with be increasingly marginalized in the larger marketplace of what constitutes life long education.  

 

Too long in the habit of following, it is truly time for higher education as we know (and love) it to lead.

 

Tracy

 

 

On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Putz wrote:



A note from a lurker...

 

If certain programs in traditional institutions become irrelevant because various industries start accepting MOOC-based certificates in the same way they would accept a college degree, then it will be cheaper for students. So much of the conversation surrounding MOOCs assumes that the traditional higher education environment (regionally accredited colleges and universities) will prevail as the gatekeeper for what passes as a "verifiably legitimate education" for the marketplace, and that "cost" is all about what it will costs these institutions to make room for MOOCs. I don't think that's a good assumption to make. Sure, MOOCs may make things more expensive for some institutions in the short run, but more importantly, MOOCs may simply make those institutions irrelevant in the long run. If students aren't enrolling in programs at those institutions anymore because they can get the equivalent or better for free (or at a greatly reduced price), then it doesn't really matter how much those institutions are having to spend to accommodate MOOCs. They won't be in that business for long anyway...

 

As has already been said, it's time to start rethinking paradigms. And, I would add, this higher-education-centric thinking that seems to be so prevalent is going to be the death of many of our jobs if we're not careful. Remember what Encarta did to Encyclopedia Britannica? That's what happens when people make the assumption that their customers will be willing to inconvenience themselves (in that case, spend lots of money to store lots of books) in order to go with a name they "trust" rather than "read some drivel they got for free on a CD." Of course, we now know that Encarta simply helped to further commoditize the sorts of information you can find in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia has continued that on steroids.

 

We have to plan for a world where the vast majority of what is being taught in our classrooms (face-to-face and online) is simply re-transmission and re-packaging of already commoditized information. Most of it isn't that special. In my view, that means we all will have to become much more focused as institutions on what services we provide that are truly unique if we're going to thrive through this new century.

 

Cheers...

Matt
---------------------------------------------
Matthew Putz, Ed.D.
| Director of Teaching and Learning Technology
Bethel University | 3900 Bethel Drive, St. Paul, MN 55112-6999 | http://www.bethel.edu | 651.638.6467

 

 

 

Message from luke.fernandez@gmail.com

To Ethan's concerns there's an article in today's Chronicle titled "I Don't Want to Be MOOC'd" http://chronicle.com/article/I-Dont-Want-to-Be-Moocd/138013/ It's written by an economics professor who has, up until now, generally celebrated the concept of "creative destruction." But now that he sees that his own job may be jeopardized by creative destruction he feels a little more ambivalent about the term. I suppose the same narrative applies to the concept of disruption as well: I'm all for disrupting companies and/or platforms that hold universities as captive customers. But I'm not so happy when it's the university itself that's being disrupted. Am I (and perhaps the economics professor) holding to a double standard? Or should universities be less subject to the rules that govern businesses in the marketplace? Luke http://itintheuniversity.blogspot.com
On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:01 , Luke Fernandez wrote: > Agreed. I phrased my question badly. > > Technology of course plays a role in change. But when we use > sentences like "technology is disruptive" we risk conferring more > agency on technology than it really has and we eclipse all of the > other vectors that drive change. The point is not to be reductive. > > I guess I'm asking whether we're good at that or not. And whether the > colloquial use of Clayton Christensen's term, and higher ed's > discussion about MOOCs encourages reductionist thinking. The platform > to deliver a MOOC has, after all, been around for at least the last > ten years. And versions of the MOOC existed much earlier when schools > started broadcasting courses over the radio in the 1920s. But they've > only now become popular. Is that popularity really mostly a function > of 'disruptive' technology? Or is it something (manythings?) else > again? An argument (not first and foremost about MOOCs but I think it's relevant to MOOC-buzz) that it is "something else." It's a bigger pattern in the carpet. http://crazycrawfish.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/a-confederacy-of-reformers/ --Keith Hazelton > > Luke > itintheuniversity.blogspot.com > >
Message from luke.fernandez@gmail.com

To Ethan's concerns there's an article in today's Chronicle titled "I Don't Want to Be MOOC'd" http://chronicle.com/article/I-Dont-Want-to-Be-Moocd/138013/ It's written by an economics professor who has, up until now, generally celebrated the concept of "creative destruction." But now that he sees that his own job may be jeopardized by creative destruction he feels a little more ambivalent about the term. I suppose the same narrative applies to the concept of disruption as well: I'm all for disrupting companies and/or platforms that hold universities as captive customers. But I'm not so happy when it's the university itself that's being disrupted. Am I (and perhaps the economics professor) holding to a double standard? Or should universities be less subject to the rules that govern businesses in the marketplace? Luke http://itintheuniversity.blogspot.com
On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:01 , Luke Fernandez wrote: > Agreed. I phrased my question badly. > > Technology of course plays a role in change. But when we use > sentences like "technology is disruptive" we risk conferring more > agency on technology than it really has and we eclipse all of the > other vectors that drive change. The point is not to be reductive. > > I guess I'm asking whether we're good at that or not. And whether the > colloquial use of Clayton Christensen's term, and higher ed's > discussion about MOOCs encourages reductionist thinking. The platform > to deliver a MOOC has, after all, been around for at least the last > ten years. And versions of the MOOC existed much earlier when schools > started broadcasting courses over the radio in the 1920s. But they've > only now become popular. Is that popularity really mostly a function > of 'disruptive' technology? Or is it something (manythings?) else > again? An argument (not first and foremost about MOOCs but I think it's relevant to MOOC-buzz) that it is "something else." It's a bigger pattern in the carpet. http://crazycrawfish.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/a-confederacy-of-reformers/ --Keith Hazelton > > Luke > itintheuniversity.blogspot.com > >
Close
Close


EDUCAUSE Connect
View dates and locations

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

EDUCAUSE Institute
Leadership/Management Programs
Explore More

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.