The recurring question in the several articles as part of the reading list for Activity 1 of Unit 2 of LRNT 525 (Weiner, 2009; Biech, 2007; Weller & Anderson, 2013; Feldstein, 2017), is how to manage change, specifically technological change, with reference to the substantial changes taking place in education. As is often the case in this field, the questions attempt to determine how to address the change, instead of defining the nature of the change. An interesting perspective is offered by Weller and Anderson (2013), who consider an organization or institution’s “resilience” to change. Using the analogy of an ecosystem, the field of education much adapt to new environmental conditions, and the species itself must adapt. However, Weller and Anderson (2013) suggest that an essential factor for survival is that the “core function remain.” According to the authors, “In terms of higher education practice then, resilience is about utilising technology to change practices where this is desirable, but to retain the underlying function and identity that the existing practices represent, if they are still deemed to be necessary” (Resilience).
Therefore, the question is, what are the core functions, and are those functions consequences of earlier technologies or are they independent of technology and need to be preserved? It is possible that certain approaches to education in the past were expediencies derived from particular circumstances. One major, particularly in capitalist societies, is the dependence of private education on public funding. This has lead to a particular situation where research conducted in universities is published in private journals, who need to protect their revenues by restrict access to that knowledge base to students and staff. It has created a situation famously denounced by Aaron Swartz’s Guerilla Open Access Manifesto (2008), which declared, “The world’s entire scientific … heritage … is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations….” Similar sentiments have led to calls for Open educational resources (OER). While commendable, as I have demonstrated in a previous blog post, titled From Left to Right: The libertarian roots of the Open Education movement (2018), the open source cause is largely, unbeknownst to many, a right-wing or “libertarian” agenda, designed to provide access to information outside of government interference. However, were there to be a transformation of funding for education, as is now increasingly being called for, or even to the extent of providing free university education, such as it is in Germany, the rationale for the current funding model for journal writing could be fundamentally upended.
Another curious example is what Weller (2011) called the “technology of abundance,” that illustrates the challenge of identifying core functions. He suggests that the physical university was the result of the scarcity of expert talent, and counters that the internet presents a degree of abundance that brings an end to that scarcity. But Weller is confusing teachers with knowledge resources. Those have always existed, going all the way back to the famous Library of Alexandria. What is new about the internet is that is expands the availability of resources. By the same token, it also expands the availability of experts, who can now be accessed remotely.
At question here is the role of the teacher. It is not just education, but the educator who is this “species” that must adapt to the new environmental conditions. How do we determine what are the core functions of teachers that must be retained? That is the question we must ask before we venture to answer how to respond to the challenge of education. There’s a risk that educator may succumb to the Dunning-Kruger effect, and assume they are more competent than they are to assess the situation. Because, what makes it new is that it involves a technology which is highly complex, and requires highly specialized knowledge to fully appreciate. Rather, the key leadership quality that educators will have to exemplify is the wisdom to know when to consult others. It’s too large a challenge to be assessed by educators alone, but should be one that involves experts from other fields. In fact, it may be a challenge so formidable that numerous fields of expertise should be consulted, not just technologists.
References
Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Swartz, Aaron (July 2008). “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto.”
Udas, K. (2008, June 30). Distributed learning environments and OER: the change management challenge.
Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223–236.
Weller, M., & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital Resilience in Higher Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.
Feldstein, M. (2017, May 28). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet?
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).
David Livingstone. From Left to Right: The libertarian roots of the Open Education movement. [blog post].