In the plethora of debate about higher education in at least the last two decades, few issues have attracted the same level of attention as the effect and influence of digital technology. For good reason, of course, as there are no institutions, activities or businesses that are unaffected by such influence. In 2013 the global frenzy attending the mention of the word “MOOC” is the standout example.
But in the case of higher education the discussion is often superficial, repetitious and disappointing. It’s too often context free, and about being a university student and/or academic.
Technology prediction has an established pattern now, discernible in so many fields. It’s a three phase pattern: first, no sooner is a new capability or application described, than predictions about its utility start to propagate and flourish, driven partly by the trade literature and sales imperatives of the industry. Second, the imagined changes have a pattern of not arriving as forecast, and then attracting doubt and pessimism. And third, this in turn paves the way for a later serious misreading, or underestimation of the longer term impact of a particular innovation or group of innovations.
This syndrome is widespread, and has been represented in the technology literature by such well known models as the Gartner Hype cycle. It has many applications in university settings.
The belief that online education will replace on-campus studies is a long standing and unrealized prediction. One of the more conspicuous predictions was Lewis Perelman’s School’s Out: Hyperlearning, The New Technology, and the End of Education, which is astonishingly now over 20 years old.
But in the last 24 months there has been a new wave of debate and speculation about the great disruptor, “Online.” And the serious question is – is this a third phase revival?
Past arguments have failed to define and observe a difference between higher education and other forms of education and training. This essentially stems from a mistaken perception the university experience can be replicated online.
With technology changing the landscape of higher education, Australia’s The Conversation is running a series “Re-imagining the Campus” on the future of campus learning. Here, Tom Cochrane outlines how technology is transforming the everyday lecture. Other stories in the series include:
The campus is dead: long live the campus? | Jason Lodge, Griffith University
Rethinking an inclusive university campus | Tom Kvan, University of Melbourne
Gardening against learning: how campus design kills conversation | Robert Nelson, Monash University
Re-imagining the campus in the vocational education and training sector | Mary Leahy, University of Melbourne
That difference is marked by the expectation that being at university will be engaging, personally challenging, and transformative of careers and lives.
The things that people look for, and pay for, in higher education are not to be ignored or diminished, and we should bear this in mind when re-imaginging the lecture and its future. The lecture has a long history of criticism and poor regard. There’s not a graduate who doesn’t recall poor and unengaging experiences – but there are some who may recall engaging, if not transformative experiences.
The issue is the lecture form in itself is not the problem. More, it is assumptions about standard length, the way it has developed as the basic component of the teaching role, and its apparent efficiency. An interesting twist in recent years is the rise of the TED lecture, the short, sharp, often inspiring monologue which is freely accessible online.
Most universities are engaged in attempts to improve their learning and teaching practices and environments. The advent of online creates a greater urgency to improve these practices. Traditional practices come up for justified criticism and review. The lecture as a form is part of this, but so are issues of course structures, semester timetabling, assessment methods, hiring practices, new approaches to student engagement, and course integrity.
Will then, the lecture endure? In some forms, yes, including online dissemination of great talks. In an intense debate in my own institution in recent years, decisions on whether to build new modern theaters or more immersive and flexible physical environments have been subject to intense scrutiny. The evidence suggests that while we, (particularly our students) will gladly abandon unrewarding lecture time, we will never abandon community, both physical and virtual. We will see the relinquishing of the lecture form as the core activity of “teaching” in many fields, but we will also need to provide for a role for the star performer: online, in the flesh, and both.