Technology Trajectories in Higher Education

The cover story of the most recent issue of EDUCAUSE review is titled “Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education”, and was written by Malcolm Brown (the Director of the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative). The article starts out by explaining the use of the word “trajectory” as compared to “prediction” for reasons of lack of omniscience. This sort of preamble always makes the words “plausible deniability” pop into my head. But on to the meat of the article!

Before discussing the six trajectories, the author sets the stage by defining three characteristics of teaching and learning: (1) personalization and customized learning, (2) the adoption of hybrid face-to-face and online modes, and (3) collecting large amounts of data and “analyzing” it (whatever that means). The author then makes a very bold claim, that “digital technology is the core strategic enabler of learning in higher education.” However, apparently for higher education IT folks, there has been a “shift in our thinking… that the technology is no longer in the foreground; instead, our attention is focused on the learners and the learning experiences that the technology enables.”

As an educator I certainly think that the focus should always be on the teaching and learning and that technology should never be in the driver’s seat. The fact that a “shift in thinking” was required in the first place bothers me. While I was an early adopter of using technology in my classes – I was probably one of the earliest in my department to write my own course web page in HTML so there was a centralized syllabus and I could deliver materials easily – I was rather resistant to using the Learning Management System (LMS), at the time an earlier version of WebCT. I was also rather resistant to adopting the online homework system associated with our General Chemistry textbook publisher. Back in the early days it was clunky to use. Now the LMS is a much smoother experience and chock-full of data analytic tools. I understand its advantages and do use it now, but I think there’s something particularly valuable about person-to-person dialogue in the teaching and learning process.

And now, the six trajectories along with my by brief commentary:

(1) Device Ownership and Mobile-First. It’s clear that device ownership among college students has increased significantly over the years. I remember the epiphany I had a number of years ago (I should have taken note of the date!) where I was walking out of class with my students and in an almost robotic motion all the students around me pulled out their mobile devices. I did not own a mobile device at the time. In any case, I am in agreement with the author that this is a clear trajectory by which students will be accessing any parts of their “digital learning environment” (another buzzword).

(2) The Textbook and Open Educational Resources (OER). The author points out that all the large textbook publishers are moving towards selling “software and services that are related to educational content.” The exponential rise in textbook costs has certainly made instructors like myself very reluctant to assign expensive textbooks to our classes. In this regard I am very thankful for the rise in OER. The question will be how usable the OER content is when adapted to one’s local environment. A good well-written textbook can be very valuable, although it seems that students know less and less about how to really use their textbook. Back when I was a college student, I found the books invaluable to my learning, but perhaps if I was in today’s generation of students I might not.

(3) Adaptive Learning Technology. This is something I’ve been watching closely after first learning about Knewton and ALEKS. (I like how they both sound like names of persons. How fitting!) I have mixed feelings about this trajectory. Can the computer indeed learn the intuitive feel that I have as an experienced instructor of how to move students along a productive learning direction? Possibly. However I can’t help but compare this to the on-board computer diagnostics in newer cars. Instead of an old-school car mechanic who learned via a combination of apprenticeship, tinkering, and frequently consulting mechanic friends (the guild), one goes through a checklist flowchart that might lead to “this part is faulty, replace it.” It is questionable whether the learning analytics will instill some of the deeper parts of learning (that we don’t completely understand). What I like about learning technology is that it is good for drilling (thanks to the infinite patience of the computer) and for developing certain skills. But I think it has its limitations. Anyway, this trajectory will be interesting to watch. As educators we should watch it closely because we could be well putting ourselves out of a job.

(4) Learning Spaces. I’ve had the opportunity to visit specially designed technology-enabled active-learning classrooms for team-based learning. I’ve also visited some “maker spaces” with 3-D printers and the like. All the spaces were quite new, and folks like to show them off to visitors. The ones I’ve seen are impressive looking (lots of money being poured in) and do actually get utilized somewhat effectively. I say somewhat because the mileage varies with the disposition/skill set of the instructors and the course content/learning goals. I am however skeptical that the amount of money spent on such spaces justifies the more nebulous “learning goals” of fostering innovation and creativity that supposedly come from the space design. I think too much credit is given to the space and technology for the learning than is warranted. (I don’t disagree that better design spaces can be enhancing – it’s a question of proportion.)

(5) The Next-Generation LMS. Apparently the big question is what LMS version 2.0 will look like. I don’t know. However I strongly suspect that when it does show up, it will be hailed as the great leap forward. It will then be thrusted on me as instructor as a tool that will greatly enhance teaching and learning.

(6) Learning Analytics and Integrated Planning and Advising Services (IPAS). The main idea behind this is tracking and alerting the appropriate person when some student is going “off track” or is becoming “at risk”. What happened to the old days when you as a teacher did your part to help students but they could also choose to go their own way without coddling and have freedom to make their own mistakes (and learn from them!)? As a frequent adviser of first-year college students, I was introduced a number of years ago to my institution’s version of IPAS. I chose not to use the system and it’s name has been blanked out in my memory. I make every effort to get to know my student advisees but I want them to have the room to choose how much they want to share. I treat them as adults and I feel that the IPAS infantilizes the students. It’s also only as good as the data it can collect (and I’m against much of this collection). I won’t say much about Learning Analytics because I’m hoping to make a more extensive blog post about them, but suffice to say they have their uses. I find some aspects of this feature helpful in our online homework system, although frankly I’d prefer more students to come into my office hours (I’ve seen a decrease since employing the system).

I agree with the concluding paragraph made by the author: “It is a time that is both stressful and energizing, with both loss and new opportunity. Our task as educators is to carefully sift through these new options, being wary not only of clinging to the past but also of embracing digital snake oil. The fundamental challenges to us are to not look into the future ‘through a rear-view mirror’ and to not have our tools shape us.” It seems a good thing to be circumspect but also to have a willingness to embrace changes that can truly enhance teaching and learning. Paper, the printing press, and books significantly changed learning (I think for the better overall) and our new technology is likely to do so as well so long as we don’t put the cart before the horse.