Viewing entries tagged
universities

5 Comments

A personal online learning story

It was a sad day for me yesterday. I decided to withdraw from a professional doctorate in higher education after about 8 weeks. I started a tradtional PhD a while ago, but withdrew from that because of a whole range of factors, best left to the past. So, I was excited to finally make the decision to enrol in an online professional doctorate. Apart from the academic content, I wanted to reflect on what it was like to be a student in an online program as I was studying online. I knew I'd be reflecting on the course content, and I also wanted to reflect on those reflections.  I started a blog to record those reflections, and to post what I was doing on the course.

I like online learning - my first experience was the first year of the Masters in Strategic Foresight at Swinburne University of Technology. Facilitated by Jenny Gidley, this was my  most intense learning experience ever, and it changed my life in a number of ways. I decided to divert my career from university management (where I'd spent the previous 28 years working my way up the ladder) to the futures/foresight field, and started planning for that. I realised the value of my voice in the online discussions and conversation (I loved the conversations), and started to realise I might no longer be afflicted by the imposter syndrome! I learned how to really reflect on my assumptions that underpinned my worldview, and as I said to someone at the time, "I know I think differently now, but I can't tell you how..." I didn't meet any of these people until the end of the year, yet I did feel like I knew them all as friends, and some of us are still in touch.

Fast forward about 7 years later and my current enrolment. Since this was a doctoral program, I had high expectations for the conversation and intellectual debate. I knew I had some coursework to do before getting on to the thesis, and that I would be working with a learning team.  That was all good. And the people involved in running this program are fantastic. I've only been doing the program for about 8 weeks. Now, why would I want to withdraw?

  • The conversation takes place on Blackboard (just like the Swinburne course). We post a response to a question, and then have to make 3-5 responses to the postings from our fellow students. There are guidelines for making the responses, down to suggested phrasing. Make more than 5 responses though, and you might be seen as dominating the discussion (as I found out).
  • You have to reference the set readings in your response as a way of proving that you have read the material - even if you don't want to use that reading in your response.
  • When I suggested we might use social media as a way for our learning team to work together in real time, we were told to be careful since all the tools we needed were provided on Blackboard, which is true, but...
  • I guess I should have twigged when I read one of the early reference materials about research sources which said, more or less, that unless it was google scholar, electronic sources were a bit dubious and that Wikipedia has no value at all, as it's terribly subjective;
  • Working in groups is just not my favourite way of learning, and this applies to online and face-to-face contexts.

A core element of this program is reflecting and writing a learning log. I have learned the difference between reflexive and reflective which seem to often be used interchangeably in the literature. Being reflexive, I realise now, is about taking a kind of third person view on my first person writing, and thinking that reminded me of this exact process that we used in the Integral Futures subject at Swinburne. While I was doing a lot of reflection on these issues in my learning log - that is, describing them and how I was reacting to them - I realised this week that I also needed to be reflexive about them. Why was I reacting to these issues as strongly as I was? What was going on in there in my consciousness that was causing me such grief? This has been uncomfortable and my brain has hurt this week - a lot. I've realised there's a few issues here for me. One is trust. The other is structure. And finally conversation.

Trust surely underpins the learning relationship between teacher and student, particularly at doctoral level? Trusting that people have read the material and absorbed it. Trusting that if people make 1 response one week, they will probably make 5 the next week. Trusting them to take responsibility for their learning, and to support them in that process, not police them. And, why can't we operate outside the confines of Blackboard? What is there to fear with that? I asked for some help to sort through all this on the Twitter #phdchat, a group of doctoral students who share their learning experiences - it's a really active chat and immediately I had two offers of help. We've been in touch via email, and some of my issues have been clarified through that interaction.

Structure is an interesting thing, isn't it? I chose this course because it was online and structured, and I knew I needed structure if I was going to work on it consistently while running my own business. The program is structured around action research principles I am told, which means the group work is core, which is fine. Any learning environment needs a structure, but it's how the learning is facilitated in that structure that makes the difference. The facilitator is key - and the ones I have worked with on my current course are great, obviously know their stuff and operate at a high level intellectually. But they too have to work within the structure, and spend probably too much time maintaining that structure. I was told that the course is what is is, and I need to work out how to adapt to the structure and the rules - which was interesting, because I think it might be the first time I've ever been told that; I'm usually the one trying to make others work within the structure we have. And, I now realise, I don't like the rules so I won't adapt.

Conversation happens in lots of way - in a classroom and online, in formal and informal settings, but it needs to happen and it needs to flow. My benchmark for conversation stems from working with Joe Voros at Swinburne - we had flowing conversation, and when he left to be an academic, I realised that's what I missed most - his brain :)  and those occasions when we would just talk about the future and foresight and how to engage Swinburne staff. Working so rigidly to a one post, 3-5 discussion responses, learning team work, and nothing else is constraining in terms of the conversation, and doesn't really allow my synapses to fire. It's those wonderful open ended conversations on a topic that seem to go all over the place that energise me, not the 3-5 responses approach.

Taken alone, this course is a good one. For me though, it seems to be underpinned by a traditional 'control' approach to learning and a 'sage on stage' delivery. Even though they say the learning emerges from the group, the learning is constrained by particular topics delivered in a particular way. No deviation allowed (particularly in using Turnitin and APA style!).   This, as Stuart Lee * says is because learning management systems like Blackboard tend to be "controlled, managed, restricted and channeled", and that delivery choices have a lot to do with the pedagogical practices of the university. I do recognise this, but I also know now, it's not how I want to learn.

My Swinburne experience felt open and collaborative and trusting, with intense conversation.  We could suggest things and ways of working together that weren't on the original plan. I realise now I felt like I was collaborating and helping to shape my learning experience. I never felt like I was being controlled even though there was structure - I knew how I had to participate and by when, and due dates to submit work.  In my current course, I felt controlled, with no opportunity to shape my learning process, and two years of this process simply terrified me. I realise now my expectations for the course were probably wrong. Maybe I'm wrong in using the Swinburne experience as my online learning benchmark because maybe it just can't be repeated?  Maybe it's just the wrong course for me. Maybe I'm just being totally unreasonable.

What this experience has taught me, however, is that online programs need to treat doctoral students as partners in the learning process (see Tapscott and Williams* on collaborative learning), that delivery structures shouldn't be viewed as fixed, but able to be shaped depending on the particular cohort, and that meaningful conversation can't be structured, it needs to flow. The degree to which a university is willing to embrace the uncertainty that comes from an 'open' learning management system, and allowing learners into the learning and delivery process, drive decisions around these issues, and ultimately, of course, these sorts of decisions depend on the way people in the university think about learning and how it should be delivered. But that's a topic for another post.

See also Steve Wheeler's post on Conversation as Curriulum: http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2011/12/conversation-as-curriculum.html.

References

*Lee, S. (2008). The gates are shut.  In  Iiyoshi, T. & Vijay Kumar, M.S., Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 47-59).Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D. Innovating the 21st century learner: It's time. (2010). Educause Review, 45(1), 16-19.
(I did learn a new skill - citing using APA style!)

5 Comments

Comment

Four Trends Driving Higher Education Futures

This post is the first of a series of five on higher education futures. It’s based on the presentation I made to the Tertiary Education Management Conference in Melbourne in October, 2010, which I’ve embedded at the end of this post. What will our higher education institutions and the work they do ‘look’ like in the future?  The world changes quickly, in ways that we can’t really imagine today, and our strategy must be designed to be futures ready – to be ready for many possible futures. So, what can we do today to shape that future and be ready for it?

To think in a meaningful way about the future of higher education, though, we must first activate our foresight capacity. Unless we activate that capacity, all our planning about the future will be based on what we know about the past and the present, which is well…dangerous, given the amount of change we see and feel all around us.In our societies and organisations today, we tend to work within existing paradigms and tweak them to make them better and more efficient.  Think quality improvement and benchmarking. If the future is going to be nothing like today, then the current paradigm won’t be good enough.  We need to start building a new paradigm today, one that takes the uncertainty of the future, and uses it to understand what our options are.

There are no future facts however, and so in our data driven organisations today, seemingly obsessed with benchmarking, quantitative analysis and data driven decision making at the expense of all else, the future is not worth spending time on because we can’t quantify it. Particularly since all we have are images and ideas about the future, underpinned by our assumptions about how we think the world works now, and will work into the future. And images aren’t real, are they? Images we hold about the future don’t shape our actions today, do they?

The first step in coming to understand four trends shaping the future of higher education, is to challenge your assumptions about what’s possible and how you think your organisation will operate into the future. It  won’t be business as usual and it won’t look anything like today. We need to surface and share our images of the future to start a strategic conversation about what is possible, and what is unlikely.

Spending time today exploring the shape and form of the future is important if we want to avoid looking like this – when all our best laid plans based on today’s paradigm fall apart when they collide with the future.

There are many possible futures for higher education but no one can predict the future, except by luck.  No one. But we can understand the shape of possible futures, and this activity – thinking about alternative futures – needs to be a pre-requisite for strategy development – right now!

There are many drivers of change out there affecting the future higher education, and you are all living the impact of these every day in your work:

  • globalisation,
  • demographics,
  • technology,
  • the need to green,
  • knowledge economy,
  • consumer trends, and
  • work.

We’ll explore four major trends emerging from these drivers in the next posts:

customising & personalising technology that enables
openness and collaboration ways of working

In the meantime, you can view the entire presentation now, and I’d welcome your feedback about this important topic for anyone working in higher education today, so comment away!


View more presentations from Maree Conway.

 

 

Comment

Comment

Why declining international student numbers may not be a bad thing

I read the latest report on declining international student numbers  in The Australian this week. Institutions and groups are responding by saying that new government visa regulations "threaten to disrail the industry".  The assumption here is that the industry is a given and must be protected, mainly because it is an income earner for institutions - and given declining government funding over time, the institutions need that income. All true, but the assumptions underpinning the existence of the industry need to be tested now. When decisions were being made about strategy to attract international students to Australia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I wonder if anyone asked what would happen if the government changed its regulations surrounding the entry of those students to Australia over time?  I remember listening to a manager talk about his first trip overseas to recruit and marvelling at the opportunity to make easy money for the institution, and that we needed to exploit this quickly for as much as we could get. I remember saying to a Deputy Vice-Chancellor in a different institution in the late 1990s when projections of long term international student numbers were published, 'what if they are wrong?' - and being greeted with a look of such disbelief and a comment along the lines of that was unlikely to happen, and we'd deal with it if it eventuated.

As it turned out, the projections were wrong and institutions are now dealing with the implications of their faith in those numbers to the exclusion of other possible system changes.  Like all projections, a linear extrapolation of one system variable based on today's circumstances, even when adjusted for what we know might change, are usually always doomed. The impact of what we know might change is insignificant when compared to the impact of what we don't know we don't know.  And it's what we don't know that will always "derail industries".

Betting the farm on the assumption that the Australian government wouldn't change visa regulations in a way that would harm the international student industry was both short sighted and akin to burying your head in the sand. This decline wasn't an unknown, it wasn't a black swan; it was a real possibility that was ignored by institutional policy makers over the years because they needed the money, and they assumed the government wouldn't do anything to harm that income stream. While one can't really blame them given the difficult funding circumstances in which they were operating, it may be time to move on now.

So, what might be done?  Instead of spending time and energy trying to get the government to change its mind, the decline in student numbers can be viewed as an opportunity to re-think the industry, and take a different approach that might be more robust and less dependent on government regulation. Rather than protecting turf, how might the industry be adapted and developed to respond to declining numbers? Rather than trying to maintain the status quo in the face of changing government regulations, how can policy makers work collaboratively to develop a new paradigm for international students in Australia? Most importantly, how can the industry be re-designed to be less dependent on growth into the future? None of the alternatives are simple or easy, so much so it seems that fighting the government to change their visa regulations is probably seen as an easier task.  That's because fighting the government doesn't require you to change the way you think, or to challenge the assumptions that inform that thinking, no matter how tenuous that thinking is becoming. It's always easier to protect current investment rather than develop new options.

These comments are, of course, easy to make in hindsight. It's easy to say that institutions should have seen this coming, and that if there was no challenging of assumptions when the industry emerged, it's probably an outcome that was inevitable. We know that the value of using a strategic foresight approach to strategy development is only really clear in hindsight. And in the face of the need to earn money in the short term, spending time thinking about what might happen in the long term is usually viewed by institutions and strategy makers see it as a waste of time - because if you can't quantify an return on investment in thinking about the future, then it's not a valuable activity. But, one can only reflect on whether, if some time had been spent on asking 'what if' questions a decade or so ago, the outcome might have been different. I think it might have have been - at least in terms of degrees of possible impact.

If you make strategic decisions without doing some serious  thinking about possible and plausible future operating environments and what might change over the long term, before you bet the farm on a strategy like continuing growth in international student numbers, then you'll end up looking like this when the future hits you in the face unawares. It's a look that's easily avoided if you integrate strategic foresight approaches into your strategy development and implementation. If you choose not to think seriously about the future in your strategy context today, then you do get the outcome you deserve.

Comment

Comment

Leadership in Academic and Administrative Roles

I have just been to the Association of University Administrators Conference at the University of Warwick where there was much discussion about changing academic and administrative roles in universities and higher education.  The discussion about terminology for administrators is continuing, largely based at the conference about professionalism and the need to change the phrase used to describe those staff who don't have roles that are primarily about teaching or research. 'Professional staff' seems to be gaining acceptance in Australia, and I heard the term 'professional services staff' often at the conference. Right now, however, the term 'non-academic' is most often used in formal structures and systems by government and institutions. And, despite the efforts of many, governments, institutions and those who think administrators should be seen and not heard have resisted calls for change, largely by ignoring them.  I think the momentum is building so they may not be able to ignore the call for change for much longer. As I left the Conference, I picked up Engage, the magazine from the UK Leadership Foundation, and read an article by Tom Kennie, Academic Leadership: dimensions and dynamics.  It's a good article, highlighting six key dimensions of academic leadership:

  • credibility - personal, peer, positional, political,
  • curiosity - challenge, creativity,
  • collegiality - team, discipline, academic unit, profession, institution,
  • capabilities - horizon scanning, sense-making, performing, connecting, celebrating,
  • character - integrity, resilience, distinctiveness, and
  • confidence - inner, outer.

I like the model, but as I was reading about it, I wondered why this is a model of ACADEMIC leadership?  Why not a model of university leadership?  Would a model of leadership developed by professional administrative staff look any different?  I think not.

Getting our brains to recognise that leading the university into the future will require the talents of all staff to be tapped, no matter what their background, is probably one of the biggest challenges in the sector today.  Alongside how to deal with declining funding, increasing globalisation and the impact of technology on universities, we need to be thinking strategically about how to shift our mental models about how universities are managed and led.

The historical and now clearly out-dated view that only an academic staff member can manage and lead a university is holding these institutions back. We must stop trying to define academic and administrative leadership in different ways, and open our minds to the idea of a leadership model that applies to all staff.  And, we need to get beyond the corporate managerialist hold on the thinking of some people about how universities are governed and led (see this article in the latest issue of  Times Higher Education which has fallen prey to the 'administrator as evil' myth) if we are to be able to build a new paradigm of university leadership that will sustain these institutions into the future.

Comment

Universities and environmental scanning

After some 30 years in universities, I should not be surprised when I hear someone make the comment about universities not being in the real world. It's as though somehow, universities live in a bubble that is unaffected by the trends and drivers that affect other business and non-profit organisations. And, no one seems to challenge it - it's just one of those assumptions that everyone just accepts and says without thinking - because that's just the way it is. Isn't it? Universities in 2008 are complex organisations, with thousands of staff and customers, running multi-million dollar budgets, with considerable physical infrastructure, and continuing to respond to changing demands from their customers and from governments. They are educating students for jobs in the so-called 'real world' and the staff who work in them certainly don't think they work in a non-real world. Like all organisations, universities are balancing operational imperatives and strategic directions and manage budgets to achieve both operational and strategic objectives. They deal with the same people issues that business organisations do, and increasingly the job for life is a relic of the past. I am not sure what is 'unreal' about this? And how different is it from business organisations?

What is different is the culture, but that's the case with business organisations as well. Universities also aren't focused on profit, although there is universal recognition now that they must run 'like' businesses, and they do. There is still an element of the good old days that surfaces occasionally, but the people who manage universities are realists and pragmatists, not isolationist.

Yes, some of the processes in universities could do with a shakeup, and some of the staff could have lessons in internal customer service, and they could blow up some of the silo boundaries that have emerged over time - but I'm not sure that this is that different to business organisations?

I stayed in university management for 30 years because I liked the open culture. There was an acceptance of difference and of being a little eccentric (although this is declining today), and because I was working with very smart people (well most of the time). The work I did ran the gamut of boring to challenging, but it was work about people, and work about education and its relationship to society, not only about profit and stakeholders. Every time I thought about moving to the 'real world', I was told that no one would understand my skills (writing, budgeting, strategic planning, staff management, survey management, quality management, KPIs and performance reporting....) because universities were so different. Huh? Universities are in a different industry, but does make them impossible to understand in terms of the skills and knowledge required to run them?

Like many taken for granted phrases and comments, "universities aren't in the real world" uses a reference point that is no longer valid. In medieval times, which is where the comment probably originated, it was very true. But, it's not true today - things have changed, but that message doesn't seem to have filtered out to the 'real world'!

In a previous post, I wrote about the need to re-think our reference point, our idea of the university, if we were to be able to understand the role of the university into the future. The fact that I keep hearing 'universities aren't in the real world' suggests that we are clinging to our outdated reference point.

This means the old reference point has not been challenged publicly or loudly enough - and that on the scale of things people have to deal with today, re-writing an assumption about universities is not hight on the list. It might also mean that we haven't found a Vice-Chancellor or President who has the credibility and kudos in the business world to be able to make people listen and realise the foolishness of their ways.

The lesson though is simple: before you open your mouth next time to repeat a phrase like "universities aren't in the real world", stop and think. Is this something you believe, or is it something that you have mindlessly accepted without considering whether it's true or not? This is one of the fundamental principles of futures thinking -challenging our assumptions on a continuing basis, to never assume the world will stay the same, and to never assume that the rules we use to interpret that world will be relevant and useful forever.

Yes, universities are different to business organisations, as are non-profits, as are professional associations, as are community organisations, as are non-governmental groups. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think there is a phrase like "well, community organisations aren't in the real world"?