I’ve been thinking about what some of the possible implications of this various “2.0” stuff might be on Universities (or, I guess, on academic institutions in general). Likely nothing too earthshattering here, just some thoughts that were sparked over the weekend while thinking about the upcoming BCEdOnline fireside chat we’re planning.
Disclaimer: This blog entry is written by myself as an individual, not as a representative of the University of Calgary. I’m not advocating for anything here, just thinking out loud about what some of the implications might be if some trends continue for another 5/10/20 years.
If we assume that things like “web 2.0” tools, and concepts like the “PLE” are going to mature and evolve, and that individuals will be able to effectively manage their own online identities and resources, that has some implications for a University.
If a person is able to manage their own information, outside of the IT-mandated technobubble, they have the ability to negate any monopolistic tendencies of an institution. That is to say, if a student (or faculty member) is able to manage their own online identity and published resources, without the need for direct intervention by an Institution, they will be able to operate outside the boundaries of any single University. Extrapolating this, a student who is able to have relationships with more than one University, and who manages their own PLE, will be able to select what kind of relationship they want to have with each University. Perhaps they take their first-year biology courses from University X, chemistry from University Y, physics from MIT, philosophy from Cambridge, etc… Perhaps a professor is able to teach students who have relationships with any number of institutions (and are located anywhere they’re technically able to access the professor and course materials). In which case, to which University do the student or professor “belong”? Does that even make sense any more?
If individuals are in control of their institutional relationships, what is the role of the institution? Previously, it was (at least partially) to provide services that were not available to individuals without institutional support. Things like email, network access, classrooms, registration systems, scheduling systems, access to researchers, and access to publications were all offered by the University to its faculty, students and staff. If individuals are able to access any of these services as effectively (or moreso) on their own, what is left for the University? Perhaps the primary role becomes as a research institution? It’s still hard for individuals to conduct hard research on their own (chemicals, infrastructure, safety and security, protocols, etc…). Maybe Universities will become hubs of research activities, with teaching and learning under the auspices of the individuals that choose to have a relationship with a University?
So, the Institution becomes a place for individuals to come together to conduct research, and perhaps to facilitate discourse. Teaching and learning activities are perhaps supported by the Institution, but managed by individuals in any number of locations. What happens to curriculum? Degrees? Tenure? How different is this from where we are now?
I’m sure Stephen (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven), David Wiley (eg.), and many others have put much more thought into this than I have.
I’ve been thinking about what some of the possible implications of this various “2.0” stuff might be on Universities (or, I guess, on academic institutions in general). Likely nothing too earthshattering here, just some thoughts that were sparked over the weekend while thinking about the upcoming BCEdOnline fireside chat we’re planning.
Disclaimer: This blog entry is written by myself as an individual, not as a representative of the University of Calgary. I’m not advocating for anything here, just thinking out loud about what some of the implications might be if some trends continue for another 5/10/20 years.
If we assume that things like “web 2.0” tools, and concepts like the “PLE” are going to mature and evolve, and that individuals will be able to effectively manage their own online identities and resources, that has some implications for a University.
If a person is able to manage their own information, outside of the IT-mandated technobubble, they have the ability to negate any monopolistic tendencies of an institution. That is to say, if a student (or faculty member) is able to manage their own online identity and published resources, without the need for direct intervention by an Institution, they will be able to operate outside the boundaries of any single University. Extrapolating this, a student who is able to have relationships with more than one University, and who manages their own PLE, will be able to select what kind of relationship they want to have with each University. Perhaps they take their first-year biology courses from University X, chemistry from University Y, physics from MIT, philosophy from Cambridge, etc… Perhaps a professor is able to teach students who have relationships with any number of institutions (and are located anywhere they’re technically able to access the professor and course materials). In which case, to which University do the student or professor “belong”? Does that even make sense any more?
If individuals are in control of their institutional relationships, what is the role of the institution? Previously, it was (at least partially) to provide services that were not available to individuals without institutional support. Things like email, network access, classrooms, registration systems, scheduling systems, access to researchers, and access to publications were all offered by the University to its faculty, students and staff. If individuals are able to access any of these services as effectively (or moreso) on their own, what is left for the University? Perhaps the primary role becomes as a research institution? It’s still hard for individuals to conduct hard research on their own (chemicals, infrastructure, safety and security, protocols, etc…). Maybe Universities will become hubs of research activities, with teaching and learning under the auspices of the individuals that choose to have a relationship with a University?
So, the Institution becomes a place for individuals to come together to conduct research, and perhaps to facilitate discourse. Teaching and learning activities are perhaps supported by the Institution, but managed by individuals in any number of locations. What happens to curriculum? Degrees? Tenure? How different is this from where we are now?
I’m sure Stephen (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven), David Wiley (eg.), and many others have put much more thought into this than I have.
Related
D’Arcy- maybe the future of the “institution” is that it goes away- but, I have a feeling- that just like smart bookstores sell the sizzel of social interaction and a place to hang-out (instead of being a bookstore). While the web is an amazing tool for exchanging info- it’s still won’t replace “being there”- any more than Cyber Sex has replaced the real thing.
Institutions are going to have to learn, just like TV networks- that they are no longer in control of their customers (students)- no more scheduling courses – or setting agendas- students will want to be able to TiVo their educational progress- the institutions that understand this best- will be the ones that survive the longest.
Daily Edublogging Update — April 11, 2006
Here’s a summary of ideas and conversations from the edublogging community that have captured our attention in the past 48 hours.
David Warlick has posted the New Story Wiki and is inviting everyone to "Hack the story!" The site invites sto…
Cool thinking! Right here and now I am sort of thinking about the same subject for some time now: what will my University look like in 10 years from now? It might be a total different world. Essentially we will (?) transform from a educational institution to a learning institution (that is customer-oriented, just-in-time, flexible etc). This relates to a research seminar that I was in last week about the net generation of students that will flocking our campuses in just a few years from now.
Check http://altspring.jot.com/WikiHome/Net+Generation+Overview.
My personal reflection is on http://educause2005.blogspot.com/2006/04/alt-conference-day-2.html
[…] D’Arcy Norman thinks out loud and says things that I have been privately thinking for the last few months. D’Arcy tries to think about the implications of “Web 2.0″ for universities. Really, it’s not so much “Web 2.0″ as it is Relationships 2.0–this extends way beyond the web, the web just enables this new way of thinking about relationships. […]
I don’t think Universities will ever go away. They’ve been around as instutions for thousands of years. Heck, Heidelberg University in Germany is over 1000 years old itself!
They will always serve an important role, but that role may change. They’ll survive the internet, as they survived TV, and public libraries, and inexpensive printing presses, and countless other disruptive technologies in the millenia they’ve been around.
Some great questions, D’Arcy. Have the educational system be more learner centered is not merely a platitude, it is a revolution. I think that it is inevitable that learners are going to be more in control and at the center of their learning. “What is left for the University?” (or college or trade school or high school) is not a trivial question.