Open Course in Education Futures

Perhaps we have also have to recognise that to a University - teaching is just one element of a multi-complex idea. Around the world, research and teaching are funded separately, and there is without doubt, some academics who fiercely consider 'research' the preserve of the elite few, who then decide what is best for all.

The is further reinforced by political funding of the two things. Perhaps what is now happening more visibly than ever - because of technology - is that teachers (the output) of University courses are increasingly interested and able to undertake a role as a researcher - lapping the idyllic islands of academics.

Don't be frightened off; research like teaching occurs through frameworks, and today teams of researchers are more common than soloists. To me Twitter is a fractured research stream in many ways - as people add and take ideas and references. It is not just a micro blog - it is a micro lit. review.

When we think of 'credit' - we must think if we are asking for accountable validation by some organisation (I need it to prove my activity) or are we asking for our input to be referenced or used in research. Right now this is 300+ research group - all firing off in different directions.

What I think is a better validation method for K12 teachers - is for them to consider their role as researchers; and to begin publishing their work in the very journals that have seen the preserve of academics. I believe, from memory - that 17% of people researching are not 'academics'.

It begs the questions, if the research this group creates increases and becomes more relevant; then the idea of what constitutes 'academic work' will change - and in turn the 'papers' that we have relied on to give us status, employment and pay.

I don't think educational blogging has wained in the face of Twitter per se; but I think that writing - extended thoughts, ideas using understood frameworks will see a maturation.

In the gap that will exist in this change - I strongly believe that teachers - using connected technologies - need to establish Guild of Master Teachers - which will validate our work as being important and worthwhile.

The Guild of Master Teachers - G stands for Group, Unity of purpose, I stands for information, L stands for leadership, D stands for Demonstrate.

The default standard for teachers here would be to create a folio of work, peer reviewed - that takes it's baseline from ISTE NETs. Over time; it can agree and extend into other areas - but essentially the guild is to support it's members and not a system that largely only pays attention if you are adding to it's capital in someway.

In Australia - K12 teachers have no such organisation, and without it, teachers can work as hard as they damn well like on this - there is not recognition of craft - just 'time spent'.

The Guild itself can then set about research - for the benefit of the group I hope.

In my previous posting I referred to an article of Ronald Barnett. Here are the references to two of his articles:

Barnett, R. 2000. University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education 40: 409-422.

And another good one is:
Barnett, R. 2004. Learning for an unknown future. Higher Educaiton Research & Development 23(3): 247-260.

Enjoy!

I've spent a little time with the OECD document http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/55/38981492.pdf linked from Dave's blog of the Futures course he did in Singapore.

Quotes from the OECD document The Starterpack Futures Thinking in Action are below

I'm going to cross post into a couple of the other threads on this site invitations to join this discussion here.

What I see in this thread, and in the comments in several other places is a concern with getting credit for this course, and more generally, the credentialing puzzle that seems to be emerging.

Dave's post http://edfutures.com/blogs/davecormier/accreditation-and-assessment-open... points at some interesting ideas. He's pragmatically looking at the question of credit for this course, but perhaps he's hinting at credit/credentialing solutions that might be a future trend.

My own interest is from the vantage of a university Office of Assessment and Innovation (OAI.wsu.edu), charged with the dual role of helping academic programs think about assessment as a tool for their learning and improvement and simultaneously, the changing and increasing demands from a regional accrediting agency (NWCCU) for accountability.

I am interested in the ongoing success of the university, and wanting to know how these forces may change the university over the next 20 years. For example, I can see scenarios where alternative modes to credentials cause large numbers of students to leave the current university model. I can see others where the university adapts, opening more paths to credentials, at lower unit costs.

So give the OECD document a glance and then please join me in thinking about assessment and credentialing.

"Futures thinking allows us to reflect on fundamental change over the next 10, 15, 20 or more years.

"It offers a multi-disciplinary approach to examining transformations in all major areas of social life, including education. It probes beneath the surface of received opinion in order to identify the dynamics and interactions that are creating the future.

While the future cannot be predicted, one can look forward to a range of possible futures and ask which of these are the most desirable for particular groups and societies. There is a variety of methods to do so – qualitative and quantitative, normative and exploratory. They help illuminate what is possible, the choices for decision-making, and can inform the assessment of
alternative actions." (pg 9)

"Futures thinking is pertinent to education because it clarifies and deepens understanding of the major forces which drive change in education systems, schools and communities.

"Futures thinking is pertinent to education because it clarifies and deepens understanding of the major forces which drive change in education systems, schools and communities." (pg 10)

If educational institutions won't make a distinction between formal and informal learning, who is going to certify learning? who or what is going to tell employers that I have the skills to do a certain job? how am I going to prove it? (I don't think employers will give me 3 months (pay included) to prove that I know how to perform).
It seems that the path followed to achieve a certification will or is already changing. But, in the end, the certification is still institutionalized. Wouldn't that need to change too?

Yes, totally agree. If I may paraphrase Barnett (2000) who said that in the light of the changing nature of knowledge, knowledge construction and validation, higher education's role has changed and will change. He suggested, amongst other things, that higher education should validate/critique other sources/claims of knowledge; formulate "therapuetic epistemologies" which will address global challenges and concerns and higher education should "provide revolutionary accounts of the world" (quite like this).

If higher education don't "own" content anymore (open sources) and are often not at the forefront of new knowledge (often the new knowledges are produced outside of universities) and if students don't want accreditation or certification, what is left for higher education to do?