new media and the transformation of higher education
DESCRIPTION
Presentation to the School of Humanities and Cultural Industries, Bath Spa University, Bath, UK, 14 October 2013TRANSCRIPT
New Media and the Transformation of Higher Education
Presentation to the School of Humanities and Cultural Industries, Bath Spa University, Bath, UK
14 October 2013
Terry FlewProfessor of Media and Communication
Creative Industries FacultyQueensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia
‘The Deathstar Scenario’‘Higher education is in deep crisis … Already we are beginning to deliver more lectures and classes off-campus via satellite or two-way video at a fraction of the cost. The college won’t survive as a residential institution’.Peter Drucker, 1997
‘On the Web for free you’ll be able to find the best lectures in the world … College, except for the parties, needs to be less place-based’. Bill Gates, 2010
Drivers of Change in Higher Education
1. Globalisation2. Knowledge economy3. Dispersal of knowledge
through the Internet4. Worldwide demand for
higher education5. Government policies to
manage costs/growth/differentiation
6. Changing student demographics/
expectations7. Relationship to industry8. Cost pressures9. Rise of new for-profit
providers10. Global ranking systems
Major source/destination countries for higher education students (‘000)
Source countries (‘000) Destination countries (‘000)
1 China (568) United States (684)
2 India (211) United Kingdom (390)
3 South Korea (127) Australia (271)
4 Germany (105) France (259)
5 Turkey (72) Germany (200)
6 France (68) Japan (141)
7 Russia (62) Russia (129)
8 Malaysia (58) Canada (95)
9 United States (55) China (71)
10 Morocco (54) South Africa (60)
Source: UNESCO 2012.
Aspects of globalisation/’disembedding’ of HEIs
1. Growing reliance on international enrolments as sources of institutional funding
2. Cross-border teaching programs3. International sources of research
funding/collaborative research projects4. Cross-border accreditation of programs (e.g.
AACSB, EQUIS for MBAs)
Paradoxical implications of the Internet for knowledge
1. Abundance2. Linking3. Permission-free publication4. Publicness of knowledge creation5. Visible contestation over knowledge claims‘The old Enlightenment ideal [of knowledge] was far more plausible when what we saw of the nattering world came through filters that hid the vast, disagreeable bulk of disagreement’ (David Weinberger, Too Big to Know, 2012, p. 174).
Elite to Mass to Universal Higher Education Elite (0-15%) Mass (15-50%) Universal (50% +)
Attitudes to access Privilege of birth or talent Right for those with appropriate qualifications Obligation for middle and upper classes
Functions of higher
education
Shaping mind and character; preparation for
elite roles
Transmission of skills; preparation for wider
range of professional and technical roles
Adaptation of ‘whole population’ to rapid
social and technological change
Curriculum and forms of
instruction
Highly structured; based around academic
conceptions of knowledge
More modular, flexible and semi-structured
sequence of courses
Boundaries and sequences break down, as do
distinctions between types of ‘learning’
Student ‘career’ Undertaken after secondary school as
uninterrupted period of life
More deferred entry and mature-age entry Softening of boundaries between formal
education, work and other aspects of life
Institutional characteristics Homogeneous with high and common
standards; many students on-campus; campus
separate from wider society
More diverse standards; mixed residential or
commuting; campus more integrated into the
community
Great diversity with no common standards;
many students rarely or never on campus;
boundaries weak or non-existent
Locus of power, decision-
making and academic
administration
Collegiate; elite group with shared values and
assumptions; ‘academic amateurs’ selected as
administrators by peers
Rise of the full-time ‘academic-administrator’;
growth in professional bureaucracies
Full-time academic managers drawing on
business management techniques;
appointments from ‘outside academe’
Access and selection Meritocratic based primarily on school
performance
Meritocratic based on multiple criteria; equity
provisions for under-represented groups
Open access with targeted support for under-
represented groups
Positional Goods and Status Hierarchies
• ‘Elite universities are partly beyond economics. They need resources, but resources are the means to more fundamental ends: the education of future leaders, research, institutional social position and historical power’.
Simon Marginson, ‘The Impossibility of Capitalist Markets in Higher Education’, Journal of Education Policy 28(3), 2013, p. 364.
‘Public good’ aspects of universities, and their paradoxes
‘Public Good’ aspect ‘Private good’ element
Support for the education of individuals boosts overall stock of human capital through a more knowledgeable population
Individuals capture the benefits of higher education in higher average incomes over time
Research leads to the generation of new knowledge and breakthrough innovations that would be under-supplied in absence of public support
Success in attracting research funding boosts the status and research capacity of elite universities
Universities as scholarly institutions contribute to a vibrant public sphere
Creation of status hierarchies as elite researchers are highly sought after by competing universities
Evolution of Open and Distance Education (ODE)
‘Baumol’s Disease’ in higher education
• Difficulties in technology:labour substitution• Use of student:staff ratios as a proxy for quality of
teaching• Institutional rigidities• Pressure to ‘buy the best’ researchers• Increased expenditure on student support services• Mismatch between institutional incentives and
expectations of both students and other stakeholders (e.g. governments)
William Bowen, Higher Education in the Digital Age, 2013.
Weighted global university ranking criteria
Times Higher Education QS Top Universities ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong)
Teaching (30%) Academic peer review (40%) Education: Alumni winning Nobel Prizes
and Fields Medals (10%)
Research: volume, income and reputation
(30%)
Global employer review (10%) Faculty: Staff winning Nobel Prizes and
Fields Medals (20%)
Citations: research influence (30%) Faculty/student ratio (20%) Highly cited researchers in 21 categories
(20%)
Industry income – innovation (2.5%) Citations per faculty (20%) Research – papers in Nature and Science
(20%)
International outlook – students, staff
and research (7.5%)
International faculty ratio (5%) Papers cited in Science/Social Science
Citation (20%)
International student ratio (5%) Per capita academic performance (10%)
Source: Barber et. al., An Avalanche Is Coming, IPPR, 2013, p. 21.
‘Five P’s’ framework for evaluating changes in higher education
• Practical issues• Personal issues• Pedagogical issues• Policy issues• Philosophical issues
Myths of Internet-based higher education
1. The Internet will kill off university campuses– Assumption that ‘on-campus experience’ is
exclusively about access to course content– ‘Eds and Meds’ urban development strategies
2. Online education is cheaper than face-to-face– Considerable fixed costs involved in developing
online content– Costs of bandwidth, revamping content, reskilling
staff etc.
Benefits and costs of online course delivery (Lei and Gupta)
Benefits of online delivery Costs of online delivery
InstitutionsAbility to reach a wider range of students
Greater flexibility in class scheduling
Enabling low-cost access to wider range of resources
Reduced costs of communicating with students
Costs of acquiring appropriate software and computer hardware
Need to train faculty and students on how to use new programs
Need for upgrades, and issues of incompatible technology
FacultyGreater flexibility in how and when courses are delivered
New modes of communication and interaction with students
Ability to use freely available online resources as additional
learning materials
Ability to engage learning instructors and develop course
delivery teams
Challenges of ensuring all students are engaged and motivated
Challenges of learning new technologies and programs
Work overload with student emails, questions etc.
Difficulty in separating teaching/non-teaching times with 24/7
student access online
StudentsFlexibility in how, when and where to participate in courses
Ability to undertake self-paced learning
Some student cohorts may prefer absence of formal classes
and need to travel
Need to have appropriate ICT infrastructure (computer, software,
broadband access)
Requires higher levels of self-motivation and time management
Lack of face-to-face peer interaction may be a problem for some
learners