As we mentioned in our last article, self-paced flexible model for instruction is eminently possible with today’s internet technology. In fact, schools such as FLVS and private companies such as lynda, have shown the viability of this approach. However, the vast majority of the educational establishment have not changed, but rather are offering a less flexible model at a higher price. What are the impediments to progress?
The reasons are many, but the fundamental issue has been the teacher as craftsman model which is the religion in this marketplace. With this model, the issues manifest themselves in two major ways... incentives and local decision making.
Teachers, like all human beings, are resistant to change. For most veteran teachers, the incremental cost of teaching a class the same way next year is fairly low. However, teaching the class in a new manner is a large incremental cost. Thus, there is no incentive to make this investment at the local level. This is despite the fact that the investment has huge leverage at the global level. At the university level (especially major research universities), all the incentives reward progress in research, so there is very little incentive to invest in the teaching model.
Beyond the core human issues, all the institutional structures reinforce the current structures. These include:
Even when work has been done in the area of online course development, the results have been limited due to the fundamentals of the teacher as craftsman model. Nearly all the courses follow the classroom+ model. In this model, instructor lessons are recorded and then with the aid of a production team, the result is enabled online. The approach has some value, but since the course content is driven by the craftsman instructor, the core characteristics of instructor IP do not exist. These courses are not easy to improve and since the instructor is often seen as the owner, collaboration is difficult. This leaves a situation where online courses are often more expensive to deliver vs their physical counterparts. As an example, the state of florida has invested in over 17 calculus one online classes in the university system.
MIT has been unique in offering license-free opensource versions of their course materials. The level of course ip development is variable, but this core could be used as a basis for a broader strategy on IP development. MIT (with a small number of other schools) is building interesting monetization models based on leveraging their IP assets with online degrees (mini-masters).
Overall there is need to shift away from the teacher as craftsmen model, the inclusion of collaboration structures, and the inclusion of professionalization of instruction development. Given the existing structures, it seems very unlikely that the current institutions will be able to offer such a radical shift in the working model. As discussed in the work by Clayton Christensen, the disruptive model likely will come outside of the current institutional structure. It will come from organizations which do not suffer the same institutional biases.
Radically improve learning!
User Friendly Engagement Model!Previous Article