Chris Lott

In “Diminishing Returns in Humanities Research” Mark Bauerlein—as part of a larger discussion I may take up over at CosmoPo sometime—asks an important question:

“In light of 50 years of vast research production, backed by substantial resources and subsidies, is not a redistribution in order, particularly toward teaching?”

After outlining the problem of overproduction engendered by the “publish or perish” system he makes two recommendations for change, including the notion that:

“…subsidizers should shift their support away from saturated areas and toward unsaturated areas, in particular toward research into teaching and even more toward classroom and curricular initiatives.”

Can I hear an “Amen?”

Granting even my significant reservations with “education research,” Bauerlein’s recommendation makes sense. Not only do higher education institutions marginalize the practice of teaching in a variety subtle and not-so-subtle ways, but they’ve created an advancement mechanism with a process that works actively against good teachers, creating an artificial zero-sum environment pitting teaching against research and administrative activities.

Of course the entire system of traditional publishing as a measurement of anything (it never had anything to do with teaching, of course), let alone one’s value to an institution, has become epically problematic given that it evolved—in large part—as a way of determining value in an environment where access and distribution were greatly limited by physical and fiscal constraints. But without trying to eat that whole elephant, is recognizing teaching as an important, core part of the institutional mandate not a manageable and reasonable request?

Or is it "Some Parts of the World Without Some Courses?"

[photo by Joseph Robertson]

I’ve just finished listening to George Siemens’ presentation "A World Without Courses" [presentation and discussion] for the second time and it has raised a number of questions:

1. Who is the "we" that George is referring to? At some points it sounds like everyone, at some points it sounds like educators, and at others it sounds like institutions. When George talks about the open question of how we tie these ideas together he posits a situation (wish there were a transcription of the presentation available) where "we" in "an academic setting" are confronted with a students who has been learning in this reputation-based, self-organized world… what role is George seeing for the "we" that is the institution? I took this as essentially a platform that would to some degree replace the institution. If it doesn’t– or if the institution is still in the middle of things granting legitimacy to learning and recognizing levels of achievement– then the whole picture changes. Then it becomes a question more like "how do we mimic the act of granting credit for prior learning on a larger scale?"
2. Learning and learners are treated a bit monolithically here, where learners are like grocery shoppers going to the store with a list in hand (or in mind). Yet institutions play a larger role than that. More importantly, learners at different levels of achievement and maturity have different motivations and abilities to succeed as an independent entity. In the comments to George’s blog post someone mentions the Antioch PhD model that has no courses… would this work for many undergraduates? Adult learners? Developmental-level learners?
3. Perhaps most importantly, I wonder how many of the advantages and examples of context that George lists can be accomplished without institutional transformation, within a world where there are still courses… because, pragmatically, I don’t believe our institutions are capable of transformation. Distributed conversations, reputation systems, distributed information can all be had by moving most activities out of the LMS and by making material available openly. What does the extermination of the course yield above those benefits and at what cost?
4. Along those lines, much of the distributed content and information out there making this learning possible comes– directly and indirectly– from those who can afford to spend time making those things and the institutional support they receive. Is the free, reputation-based marketplace up to supporting that activity?
5. What of the learning sciences? Learners are often unaware of– and then sometimes notoriously resistant to– practices they need to learn effectively. Who helps those students?

I’m not trying to knock any holes in the idea, these are just questions that come to mind. My two biggest questions involve the admitted unknown of institutional roles in recognizing value, accreditation, etc.– that’s a gigantic hole that needs some filling– and the assumption that effective learning just happens when the material is good and the conditions are right. The part of me that is involved in distance education instinctively jumps back at this point… it feels like the free marketplace of unbounded learning would serve only a very small minority of extraordinarily self-motivated and advanced students.