Alternative models of formal education delivery


Published on

Presentation to support a workshop at EFQUEL Innovation Forum, Granada, 6 September 2012, on emerging archetypes of new-paradigm providers

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
1 Like
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Alternative models of formal education delivery

  1. 1. Alternative models of (formal) education delivery Paul Bacsich Matic Media Ltd Sero Consulting Ltd Canterbury Visiting Fellow 2012
  2. 2. A Policy Brief from IITE
  3. 3. What is IITE?• UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education• Based in Moscow, Russia• “contribute to the design and implementation of the programmes of the Organization in regard to application of information and communication technologies in education” EFQUEL Innovation Forum 3
  4. 4. Requirement• “Alternative models of education delivery for the formal education system” – Primary, secondary, tertiary (HE and non-HE)4 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  5. 5. Models have to be…• Compelling IT-enabled archetypes• Generalisable• Scalable• Sustainable• Deployable in a variety of socio-economic situations in the more developed countries or regions of countries• Deliverable within current operational technology5 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  6. 6. Sectoral coverage (ISCED) 5A - university 5B – poly4 - college 3 – upper secondary 2 – lower secondary 1 – primary EFQUEL Innovation Forum 6
  7. 7. Helicopter summary EFQUEL Innovation Forum 7
  8. 8. Virtual schools• Plentiful in North America• Significant in Australasia, Asia and Latin America; less so in Africa and island regions• Surprisingly many in Europe despite restrictions• Effective and seemingly cost-effective• “Universities and researchers should consider why virtual schools in EU have been set up easily and cheaply in techno-pedagogic terms, yet EU universities mostly struggle to deliver substantial distance learning and insist on doing large numbers of pilots and studies before making choices” (Bacsich, EDEN 2012)8 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  9. 9. Virtual universities• Prevalent in all continents• Many US universities also have virtual provision – likewise in Australia – yet this ubiquity is not replicated in Europe (Bacsich et al, Re.ViCa passim)• And single-mode VUs remain minority and isolated players in most host countries and balanced dual-mode players seem unstable in the longer term, whether for internal, regulatory (“quality”, “effektivity” *sic+, “throughput”) or technological reasons• And cost savings seem elusive9 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  10. 10. Theoretical issuesQuality, cost and time
  11. 11. Quality• Dangerous in an EFQUEL forum to make broad statements, but… – Hard to judge – Students, governments and universities seduced by false proxies (e.g. price, research ranking) – Overtones of politics and the established social consensus – the new and strange are feared – for-profits, universities of applied sciences, out-of-country etc – Partly codifiable (even in the non-e world) provided one is not obsessive about it – Increasingly has multinational overtones – Good teaching can be recognised (to some extent)11 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  12. 12. Cost• Surprisingly little advance in costing methodologies in the educational system – even in the non-e world• In the e-world it may even be going backward since the work of the late 1990s• Surprisingly little recognition that the costs of education are (a) too high and (b) can be reduced12 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  13. 13. Time• “strangely under-examined in the literature of e-learning” (Goodyear)• Obsession with study hours not only teaching hours• Very slow moves towards competency models despite over 10 years of WGU• The Bane of Bologna (banes,actually) and their friends living in schools• Very little theoretical research re learning13 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  14. 14. Relevant models Now it’s your turn
  15. 15. The archetypes must be:• Compelling• Generalisable• Scalable• Sustainable• Deployable• Deliverable15 EFQUEL Innovation Forum
  16. 16. And not politically infeasible• So consider for each potential archetype its• Advantages• Disadvantages• Implications for how current policies would have to be changed EFQUEL Innovation Forum 16
  17. 17. SamplesTo discuss or shoot down!
  18. 18. 1. Virtual supplementary school• Focus on uniform high-quality provision of university- entrance subjects across the nation – E.g. Maths, Physics, Computer Science, Latin• State-funded• Each pupil has host physical school• Existence proof: US, Scotland, virtual schools for expats• Advantages?• Disadvantages?• Policy shift: need per-course not per- pupil school funding - feasible EFQUEL Innovation Forum 18
  19. 19. 2. Handheld Primary• Each pupil gets a handheld with age-related capabilities• Teaching is focussed round it but still with teachers• Low-cost fee-paying school providing excellent quality provision in middle-income economies• Socialises children into appropriate use of IT• Existence proof: many low-cost private schools but with no IT• Advantages?• Disadvantages?• Policy shift: real acceptance that private education has a role; move to public/private school system EFQUEL Innovation Forum 19
  20. 20. 3. OER C (=college)• Massive use of OER (if there) and automated and peer assessment to deliver “trade” qualifications at low cost but with international or vendor certification• Finesses the HE quality issue but still targets those skills demanded by employers• Regime to ensure acceptance by regular correlation of approach with test results• Existence proof: A number of start-ups targeting the “lucrative”(?) HE market but making it hard for themselves by challenging or ignoring the quality police (both strategies unwise)• Advantages?• Disadvantages?• Policy shift: really just needs governments to admit that non-HE post-secondary exists as a viable sector EFQUEL Innovation Forum 20
  21. 21. 4. Multeversity (Bacsich, 2011)• Broad-spectrum yet full university range of work/features• Multi-mode according to student demand: pure DL, hybrid e/f2f, traditional f2f+e (if really justified); multi-site if need be• Highly cost-aware yet transparent to clients• Covers polytechnic (university of applied science, university college) and post-secondary college areas synergistic (Cisco Academy, fashion design)• Bridges into and from upper secondary school, so as to minimise drop-out and "lock on" to schools-level knowledge• Generates “liberal arts” thinkers who are "(e-)business-ready"• Links with international partners to lobby governments & set up transnational quality regimes to finesse ranking & price snobbery• Joins with other universities and employer groups to oversee school-leaving exams within an increasingly international perspective on qualifications after school (IBac, IGCSE) and after university (HE Olympiads?) EFQUEL Innovation Forum 21
  22. 22. 4. Multeversity discussion• Advantages?• Disadvantages?• Policy shift: governments need to – get away from research as a proxy for teaching quality – get real about what the impending open access regime means for nationally bound university- industry links – governments without a final-exam system for schools will struggle to implement it EFQUEL Innovation Forum 22
  23. 23. References• Time and e-learning - Bacsich-Final-Final-PDF)• The VISCED Colloquium for Virtual Schools - -colloquium-for-virtual-schools• Growing the OER u - 6/growing-the-oeru-a-pre-conference-workshop- at-cambridge-2012/ EFQUEL Innovation Forum 23
  24. 24. Thank you for listening Paul Bacsich