Yesterday, a friend sent me a link to a piece in the Guardian about the Last days of Kodak town: the decline and fall of the city photography built. I lived in Rochester, New York during my Wonder Bread Years.
My family (me, two brothers, two sisters and mom and dad) moved from Ontario, Canada to Rochester in the fall of 1963. I remember we all watched JFK’s funeral in the Maple Leaf Hotel near the border, on the Canadian side, just before crossing into New York State.
I followed the link in the article to The death of Kodak town – in pictures, (about a book of photographs by Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb, which looks worth chasing up) and I wondered — what does the neighbourhood where I lived as a child look like now? I searched for our old house at 409 Harvest Drive, on Google Maps (click on the images below and you can explore the neighbourhood, too).
Well, like the rest of the city of Rochester, 409 Harvest Drive has seen better days. Google Maps Street view shows that the family that was living at 409 Harvest Drive in July 2012 (the latest Google Street View Photo) has been there since at least September 2007 (the earliest Street View Image). They were still driving the same pick-up truck, so they’re not helping Detroit much. Or Flint, Michigan. The front lawn and garden are in sad shape, and the big tree is gone. I ‘walked’ up Harvest Drive to Ridgemont Plaza, which looks old and tired. The whole area looks a bit neglected.
My memories of living on that street, in that house, include painting the picture window with poster paints every Christmas, finding a turtle on the road and biking back to the house to get a box to put it in (it was gone when I returned, of course), and digging a tunnel out from the front door during the blizzard of 1966.
I also remember photos of us all in front of that house, no doubt taken with Kodak film. I think those photos are around somewhere, continuing to fade. I remember visiting the sprawling and impressive Kodak plant, which is about 15 minutes drive from where I lived, on a school trip. It was like looking behind the curtain of a massive, magnificent magic show, and I was mesmerised. Between exhibitions of historic photographs, scientific explanations and product demonstrations, the tour guide led us through an endless maze of dark corridors punctuated with red safe lights. Those lights are well and truly out now. In 2012 the Eastman Kodak Company, the great photography pioneer, filed for bankruptcy. Like so many other companies and industries, they failed to read the writing on the wall.
This is a brief report on the 2014 Innovations in Tertiary Education Delivery Summit (#ITES2014), which took place on June 5-6 2014 at the Auckland Museum. The focus of the summit was online education generally, and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) in particular. The two big questions that were posted on the conference website and discussed in small in groups during the event were:
How will technology change the nature of tertiary teaching and learning in the next ten to twenty years?
What are the challenges of changing delivery and uptake of education for existing institutions?
A discussion document, Massive Open Online Courses, prepared by the Tertiary Education Commission, was released ahead of the summit to provide some background about MOOCs, especially in the New Zealand context. A 2016 scenario guide to effective tertiary education in New Zealand: Planning resource for senior managers (13-page PDF, Sept. 2012 Andrew Higgins, Niki Davis, and Pinelopi Zaka) served as a scenarios guide. A 206-page Government and sector-level tertiary e-learning initiatives An annotated bibliography (NZ Ministry of Education, June 2014), published just before the summit, provided a review of the literature dealing with eLearning initiatives, with a focus on Open Educational Resources and MOOCs.
The two-day event was opened by Hon, Steven Joyce, and the presenters included Professor Jim Barber, Simon Nelson (FutureLearn), Christian Long, Dr John Gattorna, Mark Sagar, Stephen Haggard (read his Maturing of the MOOC, 2013) and Salman Khan (founder of the Khan Academy). The New Zealand Herald reported on the summit on Friday June 6.
MOOCs — ‘how to live with them and love them’
Stephen Haggard’s ITES2014 presentation (from slideshare)
A show of hands at the beginning of the summit indicated that few of the participants had experienced a MOOC first hand. Not many used Twitter during the event (I archived 276 twitter posts that included the “#ITES2014″ hashtag) and, although attendees were invited to post comments on a website, the conference presentations were not streamed or archived. This is a shame, as many good points were made and several innovative projects were discussed (the archived tweets include links to some of these).
Minister Joyce said “Can I encourage you to focus completely on the learner”, and he noted that more would have to be done to “incentivise innovation”. However, he also acknowledged that the tension between teaching and research was likely to continue. Several presenters talked about the disaggregation of higher education and the increasing need for institutions to specialise. They advocated for substantial changes to the tertiary sector, and for a more flexible, technology-enabled, customer-driven approach. The small group discussions, however, dealt with some of the more practical issues and concerns. These included the importance of open licences (see Creative Commons) and the danger of compromising public control over higher education by partnering with for-profit MOOC platforms.
Simon Nelson announced that the University of Auckland will be offering two MOOCs through the FutureLearn platform later this year (‘Academic Integrity’ and ‘Data to Insight’). There were no other major announcements or discussions of planned initiatives. Whether Massive Open Online Courses will be part of the tertiary landscape in ten or twenty years from now is hard to say, but is its is likely that digital networks will be, and that more change is going to come. Rather than asking how technology will change the nature of tertiary teaching and learning in the future, perhaps we should ask ourselves what changes we would like to see and how we can work together to develop, and realise, a shared vision.
On Wednesday evening (March 26), I joined about 30 others at the launch of the Dunedin Free University. Appropriately, the event took place at the Kokiri Training Centre, 51 Macandrew Road, in the heart of South Dunedin. The Twitter profile for @DunedinFreeUni describes it as a “Free Knowledge Community”. There is also a website and a Facebook page for the project.
The Dunedin initiative is based loosely on the Melbourne Free University model (@MelbFreeUni), which was started in 2010. We heard about how the Melbourne project is structured, how it has grown over the years, and how we could learn from it. Participants gave short talks about the increasingly instrumental nature of higher education, and how knowledge is often treated as a commodity to be sold, rather than as a contribution to the public good. We heard about the history of free education, and how citizens have initiated community-based intellectual discussions in different countries in the past. Someone reported on the problem that rising tuition fees presented, especially in the UK.
We talked about what a community-based knowledge sharing group could do, and what it would need. Meeting spaces were discussed, ideas about how to access books and other resources were suggested, and the use of a photocopier was offered. To get things started, a course on sustainability, running on the last Wednesday of the month for six consecutive months, starting at the end of April, at the Kokiri Training Centre, 51 Macandrew Road, was discussed.
Whatever else they do, institutions institutionalise. Whatever else we teach there, we teach institutionalisation. Many of the systems and technologies that comprise, and operate within, traditional institutions of higher education have been internalised to such a degree that they have become invisible to us. We can’t change what we can no longer see. By operating outside traditional institutions, and by leaving behind the roles, hierarchies, and behaviours that they frame and enforce, we are free to redefine our relationships and to rethink what a learning community can be.
Last week was Open Education Week (March 10-15). This annual event followed the final week of the “History and Future of (Mostly) Higher Education”, a six-week Coursera MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) that several of us at the University of Otago took part in. #FutureEd (the hashtag used for the course in Twitter and other social media sites) dealt with the opportunities for changing how we teach and learn in higher education, given the development of the Internet and innovations in pedagogy. It was a very American-centric course, which is understandable. As a colleague likes to say, the best way to begin is to “dig where you stand“. The issues that were raised by the instructor, Cathy Davidson (from Duke University) are relevant to New Zealand and most of the other OECD countries. The course has encouraged me to dig where I stand here in Dunedin, New Zealand, and to think about how I can learn from the ongoing global conversation about change in higher education and apply what I am learning to my national and local contexts.
MOOCs are adding to the increasing number of responses to the wicked problem of how to provide higher education in an environment characterised by continuing financial austerity and rapid technological change. It won’t be (and never has been) a one-size-fits all winner-takes-all single (or best) solution. We are likely to see an increasingly varied and complex future for higher education in which the various players and providers are more deeply intertwingled than ever.
CCK08 (Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, 2008) and the cMOOCs that followed could be described as pedagogically disruptive, as the coordinators (George Siemens, Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier and followers) were (and still are) experimenting with techniques that would help individuals to build and maintain their own personal learning network, rather than focussing on creating better (traditional, institutional) courses. Coursera, Udacity and the other xMOOCs (the “x” is from edX, the MOOC platform founded by Harvard and MIT) might be characterised as disruptive in terms of their business model (giving the course away, the freemium model, long tail, etc.) but, however technologically sophisticated, they are not progressive in terms of their pedagogical approach or in their use of open strategies. The fundamental differences in the objectives and the degree of openness between cMOOCs and xMOOCs was the focus of at least one discussion about #FutureEd that took place on Twitter. #FutureEd was notable for the degree to which Professor Davidson and her team opened up the Coursera MOOC through the use of Creative Commons licences, connecting the MOOC to place-based courses, and encouraging parallel discussions on Twitter and on the HASTAC network, which is dedicated to “Changing the Way We Teach and Learn”.
The response to MOOCs by many university academic and managers (focussing on Coursera, Udacity and other xMOOCs), is that they are an inferior experience offered by venture capital-funded start-ups that have not managed to develop a workable business model. Therefore, they can be dismissed as a short-term experiment. Sebastian Thrun’s admission that Udacity’s low completion rates signaled a failure that required a significant shift in strategy was picked up by many who were waiting for their “I told you so” moment. This, despite the view that ‘failure’ in business is like iteration in design — it’s the way you find the approach, model, and solution that works.
Within academia, some healthy discussions are taking place about how to best provide our students with a high quality public education in the context of networked communication. These discussions should include the opportunities that open strategies present, as well as the pros and cons of MOOCs as one of many possible models. Unfortunately, the high profile privately owned for-profit MOOC platforms, which employ the traditional lecture format and machine marking of multiple choice quizzes, have diverted attention from the more transformative possibilities of open, collaborative practices that digital networks can support.
Although we (university academics, administrators and managers) like to consider ourselves as the champions of advanced teaching, learning and research, and as the guardians of the institutions that support higher education, the future may not be determined by what we believe is best for our students and for the future of universities. It is much more likely to be determined by those who have the money and the power to influence public opinion and public policy (and the former does not necessarily determine the latter). The disappointing reality is that the cMOOC vs xMOOC debate, and the growing open education movement will be of little interest to large private businesses and neoliberal politicians. We have seen the freezing, or actual reduction, of the public contribution to higher education across the OECD countries in recent years, especially since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. A belief in the public benefits of higher education has been replaced by a narrative in which tertiary education is considered to be a private good for which the individual consumer must pay. Unless we work hard to make our voices heard outside the academy, the public debate will be dominated by this view — one that devalues public education and shows more regard for the ‘free market’ than for the public good.
We are fooling ourselves if we think that higher education is immune from the significant changes that have reshaped other sectors. We are not likely to be left alone. The governments intention to reduce the size of University councils and to increase the number of ministerial appointees, despite considerable opposition, makes this clear. Tertiary Education Minister Stephen Joyce’s statement that universities need to “think more strategically and move more quickly on areas like online learning and MOOCs” suggests what might be in store. Change is going to come. The question, in New Zealand as in other countries, is whether it will come from within or from without, and whether it will serve the public interest or whether it will deliver yet another slice of the public sector to the maw of the market — one institution and one student at a time.
I’ve signed up for a Coursera MOOC called “History and Future of (Mostly) Higher Education” (#FutureEd).This isn’t a “normal” Coursera MOOC. The instructor, Cathy N. Davidson (Duke University) is teaching a place-based course (ISIS 640: History and Future of Higher Education) in parallel with the MOOC, and she’s inviting others to form groups (or workshops or courses) to participate in the MOOC as place-based satellite nodes.
This looks like an interesting experiment, and it draws on the experience of DOCC13, the first Distributed Open Collaborative Course, which began in the (North American) fall of 2013 (check out the FemTechNet Whitepaper). Hybrid models that mix online and place-based teaching may be more sustainable (and more pedagogically sound) than the massive MOOCs on their own (or a single, place-based course in isolation).
A group of us at the University of Otago plan to do this MOOC together. We are forming a discussion group around it and will meet once a week (those who are able to meet). So far, we have about 10 people who want to take part in this way (about a dozen would be ideal). Although Coursera suggests it might take 2-4 hours per week, here is no fixed amount of time that you have to devote to this MOOC (or any of these free, not-for-credit MOOCs — people tend to dip in when it suits them). Although we can all blog, tweet and interact with the course on our own, we hope to get more out of the experience by meeting face-to-face and discussing the relevance of the videos and readings to our specific context. We all understand the value of group work, right?
So, what do you think? If you are interested, sign up for the MOOC (it comes with a no obligation, money back guarantee). If you want to join the this MOOC Group (that would be a MOOCG, but I’m sure we could come up with a better acronym), leave a comment below, or contact me directly (email: email@example.com; Twitter: @mark_mcguire). If you can form a local group (even two is better than one!), then you could get a face-to-face discussion going where you live. If you want to join the Otago group virtually, that’s great, too!
If not us, who? If not now, when?
The Coursera course
History and Future of (Mostly) Higher Education (27 Jan, 6 weeks)
History and Future of Higher Education
This describes the strategy for a global movement to rethink higher education.
History and Future of Higher Education (ISIS 640) (Prof Cathy N. Davidson, Duke University)
This is the online syllabus place-based course she will be teaching at Duke.
Designing Higher Education From Scratch (Google Doc)
Posted by Cathy N. Davidson November 23, 2013
Her place-based students will do this a project. MOOC participants are also encouraged to work with this template.
What If We Could Build Higher Education From Scratch? What Would It Look Like?(blog post by Cathy N. Davidson)
How To Take On the MOOCs—And the Rest of Higher Ed Too (blog post by Cathy N. Davidson, 21 Nov 2013)
Storyboarding the Future of Higher Education. (blog post by Cathy N. Davidson, 15 May 2013)
This is a HASTAC group for “The History and Future of Higher Education,” the multi-institutional collaborative project (that includes the Coursera MOOC), that was initiated by the HASTAC alliance. We will list the Otago group on this site.
The Future of Thinking: Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. By Cathy N. Davidson and David Theo Goldberg (Free download)
Now You See It: How Technology and Brain Science Will Transform Schools and Business for the 21st Century (by Cathy N. Davidson) [Paperback on Amazon]
An Innovative Course on Methods and Practice of Social Science and Literature,
Co-Taught by Dan Ariely and Cathy N. Davidson
Re-Mixed by #DukeSurprise Students as a Self-Paced Open Course (SPOC)
A version of this entry was also posted on the Open Otago Blog.
The slides embedded below are from a talk that I will be giving at the 3rd Mobile Creativity and Innovation Symposium, which will take place at the Auckland University of Technology from 21-22 November, 2013. You can download the pdf of the presentation (8.5 MB) from Slideshare or from here). I have also uploaded a draft of the written paper (about 3,700 words, 117KB PDF).
The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #MINA2013. MINA stands for the Mobile Innovation Network Aotearoa, which is sponsoring the event with Colab (AUT University) and the School of Art & Design (AUT University) in collaboration with the School of Design at the College of Creative Arts (Massey University, Wellington).
I’ll write more following the symposium, but I thought I would upload my presentation and draft paper before the event. Emerging collaborative practices suggest how people can work together in a way that is conversational, rather than emulating old sender-receiver media and processes. I would like to connect with others who are making or following stories that are created and shared in a way that is informed by, and takes advantage of, digital devices and networks.
As Rainie and Wellman explain in Networked (2012) the rise of the Internet, social networks and mobile technologies have resulted in media experiences that are personal, multiuser, multitasking and multithreaded. They refer to this new social operating system as “networked individualism”. In Spreadable Media (2013), Jenkins et al. argue that our networked culture is characterized by instantaneous, informal communication through multiple channels in which the audience participates in the creation of value and meaning, and in the circulation of media and messages. In this paper, I use the concepts of networked individualism and spreadable media in an examination of projects that use Twitter and Instagram to create and share micro-narratives.
In 140 Illustrated Haikus, an iPhone and Instagram were used to document a month-long trip to three countries in late 2012. The resulting photos and short texts were published simultaneously via Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, email and Tumblr. In addition to the limitations imposed by time and technology, captions for the photos were written on the spot in the form of a haiku. These constraints were found to help, rather than hinder, the creative process.
Austin Kleon is a writer and artist who creates “Newspaper Blackout Poetry” by selecting a newspaper, choosing a few key words, and blacking out the rest with a marker. He shares the results with more than 28,000 followers on Twitter (@austinkleon), many of whom tweet their own blackout poems. Kleon also posts his poems to a website, where others are encouraged to contribute their own efforts. An advocate of sharing work-in-progress, Kleon’s approach exemplifies the process-based, conversational nature of networked creative practice.
Desert Friends, the “World’s First Instagram TV Show” is about three individuals who are transported to a distant galaxy and try to find their way back to Palm Springs. The filmmakers uploaded the first installment on 23 June 2013, and have continued to publish about four 15-second “shows” each week. Shot in black and white using the Instagram App on an iPhone, the programs emulate the style of low budget science fiction movies of the 1950s and 1960s. By episode number 63, the Desert Friends Instagram stream had attracted over 25,000 followers. This production demonstrates that filmmakers can create their own “TV show” with their own gear, and broadcast it over channels that anyone can use.
These case studies show that, by regularly sharing ideas and processes as well as outcomes online, individuals become part of a creative ecology that enables visibility, mutual support, collaboration, and better work.