Lifelong Learning

An open university is committed to lifelong learning in every way possible.  While nearly every institution proclaims a commitment to life-long learning, few have developed strategies.  As most institutions focus on providing degrees, the only opportunity for life-long learning is another degree, or in some instances, continuing education courses.  The issues which interfere, however, are governance structures which establish long processes for approval meaning that the most up to date proposal is dated by the time of approval, and as the half-life of knowledge is estimated to be 18 months in some instances (Siemens 2004); therefore, some programs are obsolete before approval.  Harold Williams (2002), president emeritus of the J. Paul Getty Trust, notes not only the dangers of faculty culture and its manifestation in governance, as an obstacle to change and development.  He further notes that he public university needs to “redefine its mission to include opportunities for lifelong learning through non-degree offerings as integral to its programs.”  There are ways in which many campuses try to connect with alumni, but these are few and far between and dealt with more as fund-raising events than lifelong learning.  Some offer continuing education, but not all courses offered through such are relevant to meet needs and some are specious—good continuing education programs built on academic substance are rare.  Some colleges offer incubators, but those are offered usually to increase funds only and not framed as lifelong learning, as either a continuing point or as an entry point.  Finally, the fixation on the academic course, and its termination at the end of a semester, becomes the antithesis of lifelong learning.  The very higher educational structures which claim a commitment to lifelong learning do not allow students to repeat course to update their knowledge; the fact that the student would have to repeat the payment as well, along with the belief that taking the course once is sufficient as the course does not update, all cause an end point.  A more effective strategy in technologically based learning, would be to allow the student to remain inside the course permanently.  That would allow the learner to become a lifelong learner in participating in new threads of discourse, gain updates as the course evolves, and current learners benefit from those who have previously taken the course and are now applying it (hence their reason for revisiting the course).  As opposed to increasing faculty workload, it would actually decrease faculty workload as the continuing participants would not require assessment and would provide facilitator support.  Another effective means of lifelong learning is George Siemens’ conception of the MOOC. 

Diversity

Thorp and Goldstein note: “Addressing complex problems requires diverse points of view, a deep level of practical implementation and openness to fundamental change.”  Open resources contribute to diversity in that they are created in smaller pieces than entire courses and may be compiled in multiple ways allowing an individual to create their own understanding, interpretation, and mediation of ideas.  The creation of diverse ideas is critical, Irish language poet Nuala ni Dhomnaill in the New York Times Book Review argued that linguistic diversity (and its resulting diversity of thought) is as important as bio-diversity (1995).   Similarly, T. S. Eliot argued that the very way in which pieces of knowledge are placed together create entirely different educations.  As he notes in his essay “The Perfect Critic”: “ the true generalization is not something superposed upon an accumulation of perceptions; the perceptions do not, in a really appreciative mind, accumulate as a mass, but form themselves as structure” (Eliot 1920).  

Diversity must be by culture, as culture defines the background an individual learner brings with them that they can apply to the intellectual material.  Diversity must also be by intellectual ideals, philosophies, ideologies, social class, aesthetic taste; in short, the diversity must make the university what it claims to be—a place where ideas can come together freely.  If a university is to teach civil and thoughtful discourse, it must model it.

The organizational architecture of an open university finds ways :to leverage the disparate knowledge assets of people who see the world quite differently and use tools and methods foreign to those we’re familiar with” (Chesbrough).  It is in this way that intellectual diversity is achieved.

Interdisciplinary

An open university is very careful to avoid what Ortega (1930) calls “The Barbarism of ‘Specialisation.’”  While a learner does need depth of learning in their specific discipline, they also need a wide breadth of knowledge, and an open university with its abilities to deliver in multiple modes and variability of faculty in alternative structures, can best deliver such.  Interdisciplinary study does not simply refer to offering general education courses. Interdisciplinary requires modeling interdisciplinary thinking at an institutional level.  It features courses team taught across disciplines as well as programs of study that cross lines and siloes.  This is not only an academic advantage, but in this millennium, a requirement. As John Kao (2007) notes in Innovation Nation, the world today faces “Wicked Problems.”  These are problems which require the thinking and approach of multiple disciplines.  An issue like world population is social, political, scientific, agricultural; in short, virtually every discipline has a place in confronting the challenge.  A student locked into one discipline may not be able to understand the relationships of complex solutions, or be able to participate in their development.  Multiple thinkers cited over the course of this work, ranging from Thorp and Goldstein, Kao and James Duderstadt (2002), all agree that the higher educational institution of this millenium must be interdisciplinary.

Werner Hirsch sees interdisciplinarity as being a key to higher education assuming its appropriate place in the world; however, they will have to take the appropriate actions and make the appropriate cultural modifications to make that happen.  He writes: “Universities will have to perfect new mechanisms, at times even to adjust their structures to become effective participants and even more pivotal key players.  Particularly they must provide incentives to facilitate and nourish creative collaboration in teaching and provide opportunities for cross-fertilization.  At the same time, they must create an understanding among their students of the merits and efficacy of an interdisciplinary education” (Hirsch 2002).  The State University of New York already has this mechanism in the form of Empire State College.  The college facilitates and nourishes creative collaboration in teaching.  The School for Graduate Studies, in its program development has focused specifically on cross fertilization by developing in regions of overlap to build on faculty strength, and then hiring into those cross-fertilized areas allowing a further step in development and evolution to build on those strengths and then to gradually expand and continue into new areas and follow new paths.

The interdisciplinarity which Hirsch addresses ties back to Kao’s ideas on wicked problems and innovation noted at the start of this section; Hirsch writes: “as challenges facing society become increasingly complex, multidimensional, and multi-faceted, education must stimulate horizontal, thematic thinking and exploration.  Emphasis on interdisciplinary curricula and research is thus in order.”  

EdX

Find the largest, most vicious Great White Shark that exists-you can even tell him that I said bad things about his family.  Regardless, I will gladly defend myself against this attack with nothing but my bare hands,…. as long as the encounter happens in a parking lot across the street from the beach. Ridiculous?  Very much so.  The ability of participants in any action should be determined not by their abilities in their indigenous environment, but in the environment of the encounter.

For the past week, my mail box has been filled with messages of concern which include forwarded articles about EdX—the new venture by Harvard and MIT to provide free online courses.  My comments here, however, are about environment , not about specie.  Sharks are beautiful creatures who dominate their indigenous environment.  Harvard and MIT are “beautiful” institutions who dominate their indigenous environment.  They do premier work (at a premier price); however, research institutions are vital to our world and make it possible for the remainder of higher education to be able to perform their missions.  However, the world also needs open institutions, and serving as a dean in an open institution, I welcome this venture and any institutions willing to support the effort to universally provide education.  To those of us working in the openness movement, EdX is not a threat but a resource.

I admire, respect, and appreciate what EdX is trying to do [except rhyming with TedX which feels cheesy].  This venture by two premiere institutions is a validation of the academic legitimacy of open education.  Those who for generations, or so it seems, now base their argument only on the fact that these institutions do not give credit or degrees for the work.   However, it reflects a greater irony—those institutions and individuals who most oppose open education usually cite the model of the research institution as the measure of all legitimacy.  Thus, the sad part is that the opposition by many to open education reflects a lack of confidence in themselves to validate and move into new untried circles of activity and new modalities.  Higher education is, as all of the literature now attests, is in deep trouble—deeper than any of us care to admit—the mold of the 18^th century institution does not work in the 21^st century.  The mold does not need to be modified or patched or shimmed, it needs to be broken, and we need to start from scratch.

Why then are “the masters of the mold” moving into this area?  Despite what some may argue, it does not make sense for these institutions to try to keep others out.  They really do not need to worry about someone competing with someone on their own level.  (They have no worries as it is inconceivable to think of the resources it would take not only to be able to compete with those two institutions but to remain competitive.)  It is more reasonable to assume that their motivation emerges from seeing the problems in the mold as it currently functions, and this action represents their way of contributing to improving higher education.  Harvard’s own Clayton Christensen, in his concept of disruption theory shows that it is the old stalwarts who dominate an industry.  However, these old stalwarts seem to be trying to do so.  Doing so is possible, as the history of IBM will attest to, when an organization is innovative, open and agile—in short, these actions represent the best of what a research institution does.

For those who are within open education and worry about the effect that this will have, you need not worry.  This is where environment comes in.  Other schools cannot compete with those stalwarts as stalwarts, but in the realm of openness, both for the environment as well as the nature of the business (open education and traditional education are as different as water and air), all things are equal and their dominance in the traditional sphere is no longer at play.

If we look at openness and its values, the emergence of EdX benefits on many fronts.  Just as the open movement is trying to unbundle higher ed, separating content from credit moves in that direction.  As open moves in new directions of certification such as badging, the idea of a certificate from these entities supports it.  If we accept that open is about collaboration rather than competition, then all collaborators should be welcome.  It is hard to write about openness (for me anyway) without invoking Sun Microsystem’s  “it’s not the computer; it’s the network.”  Open education is about the network of shared resources and EdX makes a great contribution to that network.  EdX is not a reason to fear but a reason to celebrate.

Welcome EdX, the entire open movement is bettered by your presence.  My only request is that you get a better name. 

   

Entrepreneurial

An entrepreneurial institution is a must.  If we look at the technology industry as a model where rapid shifts are happening, companies are at the top and gone in a matter of a few years.  The same thing is beginning in Higher Education where the rise of for profits willing to deliver in an open means that traditional institutions for the most part resisted, or where existing approval processes caused it to arrive late.  [see OPEN INNOVATION]  The major reason for this was explained by Sir John Daniel during the 2011 Boyer lecture when he noted that disruptive technologies rarely favor existing providers. An open university must be entrepreneurial in that it must remain one step ahead.  To do so, risk must be assumed [see OPEN LEADERSHIP]. 

An Open University must practice entrepreneurial science, which Thorp and Goldstein (2010) define as: “a high impact, problem-based approach to the world's biggest problems that produces measurable results in terms of public benefit.”  Most important about this definition is that it does not apply simply to research, but also includes developing needed programs to produce appropriately trained teachers or Health Care workers to meet emerging needs—especially new programs which can be developed quickly to meet the needs as they develop.

A great deal of this depends on the architecture of an organization.  As Chesbrough notes: “a valuable architecture not only reduces and resolves technical interdependencies, but also creates opportunities for others to contribute their expertise to the system being built.”  An open university must have an architecture which allows it to be entrepreneurial, as well as a leadership comprised of entrepreneurs.  The characteristics of an entrepreneur, according to Thorp and Goldstein, are:

• ·         Willing to live with risk and uncertainty as the world they live in is uncertain;
• ·         Not afraid to fail;
• ·         Willing to venture outside of their comfort zone;
• ·         Are lifelong learners;
• ·         Willing to “make it up as they go along;” and
• ·         Comfortable with ambiguity.

While the future of higher education in general faces the challenge of developing such a leadership, but while traditional higher education is designed to resist ambiguity and change, an open university is designed to embrace and build upon it.  The current Empire State College fits within this framework, in embracing the principles of entrepreneurship.

Innovation

John Kao (2007) notes that every organization which seeks to be innovative has to both define innovation as the organization conceives of it. Likewise, it must also determine where in the organization innovation is placed—there needs to be a specific point which the organization can point to when asked where innovation is.  Higher Education has not only sought the idea of tradition (even where such tradition is a recent phenomenon, tradition makes it an easy way to avoid the challenges of innovation) to protect itself from innovation, its siloed structure makes any innovation created in one part of the institution difficult to spread through the organization.  Undoubtedly, many campuses have developed practices such as teaching and learning centers to help spread practices such as good teaching, these relate to innovations relevant to individuals and not to the organization as a whole.  The advantage of a Graduate School being the center if innovation is that even in traditional institutions, the graduate school is the academic entity which extends across the college in involving faculty from many disciplines, departments, or even locations.

One of the ways in which Kao highlights the ability for an organization to support innovation is through the creation of “skunk works.”  The term itself goes back to a division at Lockheed Martin which was charged with innovation, and was able to do so and do so quickly due to its autonomy and not being required to follow standard processes.  They report in at a high level, but also are required to have a smaller operating division in that the skunk works makes itself more agile by selecting high talent individuals who are committed to their projects and performing the work necessary to get the job done (Lockheed Martin 2011).  In short, all efforts are made to keep the projects agile [see AGILITY]. 

At SUNY—Empire State College, the School for Graduate Studies is the place in the organization where innovation should be highlighted.  The reasons for this are many.  First, as the entity within the college that offers structured degrees, the School can develop curriculum which assures faculty opportunity which, along with the growth enrollments it brings and allows the hiring of a more diverse faculty.  In this way, innovation feeds innovation.  Second, given the fact that GRAD is removed and different from standard ESC practice allows experiments to be conducted outside the standard and traditional practices of the college.  Finally, as students entering the graduate programs tend to be much closer to one another academically than undergraduate programs (mostly because grad as a 9 hour transfer cap and we do not currently offer PLA), we have a base line against which to measure programmatic successes.  More importantly, as there is currently a national discussion going on about the Master's degree and its place in society (as seen in the national push for Professional Science Master's degrees).  Allowing the School for Graduate Studies to serve as the center for innovation for Empire State College allows the graduate school of an open university bring its flexibility to bear and take the lead in this conversation.

Open Source

Much of the thinking about openness emerged from the open source movement in software. Unfortunately, some higher education institutions are afraid of open source software because of support fears and increased personnel quality and hence cost. Fortunately, the practice of using open sources is becoming much more common. There are three advantages to an institution using open source. First is the opportunity to customize in a way that out of the box does not necessarily allow. To have the appropriate support, an IT department not only needs people with specific coding and scripting skills; these people need to be problem solvers—creative and agile. Those same skills can be applied to responding to developing needs to allow a campus to remain cutting edge in meeting learner needs instead of waiting for a software behemoth to release its next version. Second, the open source models the best of education in its sharing. A campus that supports Open Office, now provides the ability to meet a software that does not cost students an excessive amount of money to acquire. Finally, in the challenge of budgets in the present time, the fact that even with the additional personnel costs, open source remains a more viable option financially for campuses.

Open source models the true principles for all we have discussed here in terms of opennenss. If we look at the standard model of the developer and tester, we have a closed model, but in an open source environment where people can contribute as well as receive, we have a bi-directional equal model. The developer and the user are the same person. In open education, the learner and the instructor are the same person. This requires a shift in not only the individual who would traditionally be labeled as the student, but also the individual who would traditionally be labeled as the instructor. While some worry that having infinite contributors can actually lead to duplicity, the opposite is true. As Eric Raymond Stevens (2002) notes about open source: “In practice, the theoretical loss of efficiency due to duplication of work by debuggers almost never seems to be an issue in the Linux world. One effect of a 'release early and often' policy is to minimize such duplication by propagating fed-back fixes quickly.” Compare this to a research world where people hold their data and projects close to their vests. Not only is duplication possible (and if one considers the common nature of the public discourse, likely—how many graduate students have been heard to release blood curdling screams when a new edition of a research journal comes out usurping the argument of their dissertation). If the data were public and open, the development would not only be faster, but the discourse and disciplines in and of themselves would benefit. The fact that such practice does not occur is not a result of ego, it is ingrained in structures. That research is an absolute necessity for tenure, promotion, USNWR rankings, NSF (which would be so much better if they had listened to Vennavar Bush) funding. In other word, the intellectual development machine is hindering intellectual development. Don't throw your hands in the air...pay attention and speak up! The issue is the fear of what about bi-directional relations. What if a 14 year old able to parse data performs an analysis that would get someone tenure in a postsecondary institution? Do we give them tenure (no), or does it mean that the system in not functioning and needs to be reexamined (yes). If the primary driver is replicable by those outside, why would that be the end. Research is a piece of a larger academic puzzle—we cannot reward for a single skill. Imagine if baseball gave awards for the fastest runner. Speed is a great skill in the game, but in and of itself, it is useless if someone does not have the good judgement of when to steal a base or cannot hit to get on base to be able to run. What about research devoid of contributing to the development of the world knowledge base as opposed to one's own ISI score.

Raymond Stevens notes that having more users actually results in better analysis in that you have more people looking at unix with varying interpretations and views—wouldn't it be great if the same were true of research data in higher education research. Wouldn't it also be great if we could do that in teaching as well. Having all learners become instructors would generate volumes, but the speed of development would allow the value of work to be filtered faster, and the quality work to be built upon even faster (see CROWD ACCELERATED INNOVATION).

As Open model does not destroy or mitigate the need for traditional models, whether we’re talking about software development, learning, or university structure—the open university does not make the traditional university redundant; rather it enhances it. Where openness differs, is that it is designed for rapid change and development. Eric Ray Stevens in Cathedral and Bazaard put the comparison best when comparing the cathedral (traditional) vs, bazaar (open) models for development; he argues that it: “resembles the relationship between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics—the older system is still valid at low energies, but if you push mass and velocity high enough you get surprises like nuclear explosion or Linux.”