I'm grateful to Michael for provoking discussion around the issues of online learning and education/teaching-at-scale. These are not uncontroversial issues as some have noted. In our current and in our speculative future educational challenges (the not-soon-enough post COVID-19 era), there is the need for the most expansive and unbiased educational purview we can muster. We can anticipate that every sector, including post-secondary education, will be faced with a period of daunting economic challenge, and university administrations will be financially put-upon, and will need to restructure for economic recovery and revenue generation. Governments will be in the deep waters of deficit and budget letters to post-secondary institutions will not be generous by necessity.
I suppose that Michael's statement inspired me: "While many in the academy are not thrilled with online learning (it seems no number of decades of research can counter general perceptions based on Medieval traditions) there's really no other way to educate at scale that online delivery methods. I'll venture that with regard to critics of online education and teaching-at-scale, it is not a matter of ossified perceptions borne out of an enamourment of the ways things were done at the University of Bologna in the 11th century; rather, it's that those less than thrilled have long been struck with often inflated promises of online delivery (online education will save the economy, or more boldly re-invent it, for example) over those same decades mentioned. The ever-expanding case for online learning should not proceed as an either-or prospect, pitting purported outside-the-box technology visionaries against the imagined musty custodians of timeless and immutable educational purity. The boundless classroom and the always urgent and ongoing renovation and innovation of pedagogical practices are not necessarily dependent on technical capital or technologically enabled mega-classes.
To my mind, informed critiques of online delivery are not trading in conspiracy theories, nor are they summarily dismissive of the virtues of online education and teaching at scale. But such critical perspectives advocate for vigilance and intervention on two important fronts: one, pedagogical quality (addressed comprehensively by Michael) and the other, the political economy of education.
The former concerns the nuance and richness of synchronous, deeply interactive, participatory, and personalized face-to-face pedagogical practices, as well as the compelling and enduring concepts of, and approaches to experiential learning and critical pedagogy. Indeed, and beyond the economic arguments, there is considerable suasion in the view that education must be driven by moral and civic purposes--educating students to become fully realized informed citizens, formed and motivated by those lessons and experiences in their university education that taught them about creativity, sociality, collaboration, and especially agency. This is not to deny the ample capacities of teaching-at-scale to capture some of these values and principles; but it is entirely legitimate, in fact imperative to question the efficacy of teaching-at-scale in the achievement of lessons toward citizenship (our key mission after all).
The second front is hotly debated, and properly so. Even the most vigorous and imaginative advocates for teaching at scale recognize some perils. As Steven Mintz noted in his Inside Higher Ed blog from a year ago, "Teaching at scale is the holy grail of those who hope to cut the cost of higher education." And such scale further offers a means to "maximize revenues while minimizing instructional expenses" for an abundance of online degree and certification programs. (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/teaching-scale) Concerns around neoliberal trending in the modern university, around managerial models of education policy, administration, and practice, around education disciplined by administrative metrics of "productivity" and "accountability", all should be a part of our ongoing dialogue and debate around online learning and teaching-at-scale, frankly, to make online education the best that it can be.
There is no panacea for unemployment. Online learning and teaching-at-scale can work, and have worked with efficiency and creativity for some of the academy's disciplines in terms of employment preparedness for students. Online affordances and applications are mitigatory, not curative. I reckon that before looking at the availability of university mega-classes, most of those abruptly thrust into unemployment in the social and economic ravages of the pandemic will likely be looking at policy and action related to more readily available and malleable major bank loans to small businesses, vigorous and comprehensive stimulus packages for small business and job-creating sectors, financial assistance for debt incurred and for rent/mortgage relief, consequential policies toward housing affordability, and a range of other measures.
Michael's assertions on behalf of online education and education-at-scale productively shift our focus to the actual career aspirations and opportunities of our students. Employment horizons are also inflected with AI and comprehensive societal automation, and the ongoing concerns and speculations around the "jobless society" (a debate for another time). But online education is clearly and forcefully key in the future of education, and I'll argue that on ongoing critical analysis of its methods, practices and content is essential to its capacity to advance the interests of students--their gainful employment and their citizenship. At the same time, face-to-face contexts of education have never been more crucial and urgent.
cheers, Martin
At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ(Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.
Sent: April 4, 2020 9:39:47 AM
To: academic-discussion (academic-discussion@sfu.ca)
Subject: addressing the unemployment problem
I think it's important to look beyond our own needs to consider those of the wider society. Millions of jobs lost, which even if the pandemic ended tomorrow, many won't be coming back. The university, as a core institution of civilization, has a special obligation to do what it can to help those suddenly economically dislocated to gain a foothold in the economy.
While many in the academy are not thrilled with online learning (it seems no number of decades of research can counter general perceptions based on Medieval traditions), there's really no other way to educate at scale than online delivery methods. Society is going to have a major education-at-scale problem (actually, it has already had this problem for many years, given the millions of annually vacant technology jobs, which the 'bootcamp' industry has addressed– now this education-at-scale problem has become much worse).
South of the border, University of Washington invested years ago in infrastructure to educate millions of students online, and its Continuum College annually awards 50,000 + certificates and degrees. A forward-thinking approach to address vast society unemployment would be to consider ideas that often seem to be anathema to the general local discourse, such as awarding university credit to students who complete courses on the MOOC platforms, which many other universities (and, very high quality ones, too), have pursued:
https://www.classcentral.com/report/moocs-for-credit/
Best,
Michael Filimowicz, PhD
Faculty of Communication, Art and Technology
School of Interactive Arts and Technology | Simon Fraser University
Office: SUR 2818 | 250-13450 102 Ave. Surrey, BC V3T 0A3
T: 778-782-8178 | Skype ID: michael.filimowicz