At http://www.p2pu.org we are experimenting with social learning communities that take advantage of open educational resources. We are finding that there is an incredible enthusiasm for learning together, and for sharing knowledge, and that the necessary educational resources exist in abundance. The People’s University uses OER to provide public health education online at very low cost. Edufire and SuperCoolSchool are building platforms that anyone can use to teach. Someone from nixty commented above about designing eportfolios and ways to measure online social learning (something we are also interested in). It’s an exciting moment, but I see very few institutions taking a leading role. Through my work at the United Nations University and the University of the Western Cape I understand some of the reasons for this – but there is a risk in looking to the past in order to predict the future, especially at a time when technology is enabling new social norms and behaviors.

Best – Philipp

So far my 2 Pennys.

Andreas

I look forward to a future where there is some agreed upon way of evaluating digital identities/competencies/recommendations as an alternative accreditation process. At http://www.nixty.com, we are struggling w/ways of capturing this. Right now, we are following the lead of some of the folks you mentioned above in providing an ePortfolio that is comprised of a work display, CV, and recommendations. We are definitely still in the beginning stages of this process.

Thanks again for the post.

I largely agree with the sentiment of the post although I’m not entirely convinced with the argument that OER could challenge the role of HEI , it might (in some sectors). With the recent emphasis on, what I would describe as, the commodification of HE it is not only the accreditation function which provides distinction for HEI but also “brand” wether we like the term or not. This is why (at least one of the reasons) a degree from a college in Cambridge may be more highly regarded from one granted by an institution such as the university of Bolton (for example). The more established institutions have established (over many years) a significant “brand value” to their educational offering (speaking commercially). One thing we can be sure of students (learners , customers [whatever your perspective!] ) are certainly “brand savvy” .

Undoubtedly some institutions (the recruiters, certainly not the selectors) will have to offer more flexible offerings to their “market” prompted by demand but more likely by policy (Higher Ambitions in the uk being a case in point). I would suggest the more established institutions will continue (successfully) to maintain their offering of the last 800 to a thousand years.

Recently I attended a very well established institutions (selector not recruiter) open day, I was astounded by, what I perceived as, the arrogance of that institution in showing little or no interest in those attending the day, no tutors available, they merely sold the “value” of the qualification gained by attending the institution and the value of the experience of interacting with like minded tutors and students, online was not an option, nor would it “ever” be, the value was in the human interaction and I have to concede in their case they had a point. The course in question is now ten times oversubscribed !

I’m convinced that employers will continue to regard institutional “brand value” very highly in the recruitment process much more than “digital identity, persona” much as I wish that were not the case.

Good post Graham. Given the availability of learning resources, one has to question the advantage of the education factory. If you think about it, the models of teaching and learning used are more akin to Henry Ford and F.W. Taylor’s approaches to industry from the 1920s. Much of our curriculum infrastructure comes from Tyler’s ‘Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction’ (1949 but developed during the 1920s). It frequently seems as if we are trying to tailor a century-old model using the current models of learning technology.
If we question the value of summative assessment (based on everyone going through the gate at the same time / speed) and look at valuing ipsative assessment (based on journey travelled) that might be a starting point. However there is a huge vested interest in the state-sponsored institutions that prepare our young people for the needs of the state – we do deliver (in the main) an instrumental curriculum (as required by The Prince of Darkness).
Is there a place for a more liberal education in the face of cutbacks? The value of web-based content delivered by a VLE is cheap and repeatable, but it isn’t learning. But then Illich said that better than I did, and a long time ago.

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda pawb!