The pandemic is going to permanently impact higher education. Some institutions are already closed. Funding for state universities has been reduced leading them to close departments and eliminate majors. Faculty who resisted teaching online were forced to do so. This post brings together a number of things related to this topic. There are discussions of the future of institutions and discussions of creative pedagogical responses to the pandemic that are happening separately when they ought to at least be in more conversation with one another than they currently are. I think one reason this hasn\u2019t fully happened yet is that faculty are concerned about where this might lead. But if we let the conversation happen without us leading it, it is even more likely to lead in directions we are unhappy with.<\/p>\n
Here is a roundup of some of the things that I\u2019ve come across recently related to this topic:<\/p>\n
There was a call for papers on teaching in times of change<\/a><\/p>\n Brand new books on the future of higher education are already obsolete<\/a> If you teach online again in the fall, don\u2019t just do what you did this spring<\/a><\/p>\n Creating a Resilient Teaching Community<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/learningaloud.com\/blog\/2020\/05\/16\/online-learning-vs-remote-instruction\/<\/p>\n Online Learning Consortium<\/a><\/p>\n How the humanities can be part of the response to the pandemic<\/a><\/p>\n https:\/\/thewayofimprovement.com\/2020\/05\/19\/what-people-are-learning-about-themselves-and-others-during-this-pandemic\/<\/p>\n How the coronavirus has shattered the myth of college in America<\/a><\/p>\n This response from Scott Ferguson to claims that edtech will provide solutions in the form of AI personalized education<\/a> seems on target to me. Here\u2019s an excerpt that is particularly important:<\/p>\n If one really wants to get the sort of data that can feed real individualization, then one must very strictly control the situation \u2013 control the variables and control the change, i.e. strip away all the complexity. And there are enormous problems in fully applying this. The obvious one is that it calls for a radical change in the student\u2019s educational program (and with that one runs into toxic politics). But the more subtle and far more basic problem is that simplifying things so as to get \u201cgood data\u201d also means losing any\u00a0benefits\u00a0<\/em>one was getting from the complexity. Complexity and good data are inversely related, and a complicated setup\u00a0works really well in more situations<\/em>.<\/p>\n The trap here is to think that a messy, humanistic style of education where students all do a ton\u00a0 of different things, and do them together in a highly responsive social atmosphere, and converse and learn in a way where there\u2019s a loose structure but where they must also find their own way in a common activity \u2013\u00a0play<\/em>, for lack of a better word \u2013 just can\u2019t work as well as a style where they\u2019re fed individualized work with each element trackable and itemized.\u00a0But just because we can\u2019t \u201ctrack\u201d what\u2019s happening doesn\u2019t mean nothing\u2019s happening \u2013 indeed,\u00a0dabbling with lots of things can be hugely productive<\/a>. And, as I suggested above, the \u201ctracking\u201d cannot come free: if there can be a data-driven individualization approach in human development that really works (such as Bondarchuk\u2019s), it is only because it\u00a0simplifies the situation<\/em>\u00a0so that it cannot fail to get the data that it needs. If you really want to individualize you must strip things down, cut off all the play and any benefits it was providing.\u00a0Genuine\u00a0<\/em>individualization, then, is surely not worthless, but given the conditions it really becomes compelling only when a more complex setup ceases to be effective or useful. In education that\u2019s normally cases of mid- to high-level specialization (grad school, say) or for students who, for whatever reason, do not respond well to the more traditional approaches. It might be a useful tool, but it shouldn\u2019t be the first one we reach for: even if a student isn\u2019t progressing \u201coptimally\u201d in a more complex setup (however we may gauge that), as long as they can indeed still make progress in many different fields at once then it may not be worth the cost.<\/p>\n Individualization is real, then, only within its limits. Any heirs of Knewton, insofar as they still make grand promises about educational paradise via magical robot tutors and no major policy changes, should thereby be designated vaporware until they prove otherwise: if we want meaningful improvements in education at any level at a large scale, we are left only with the hard reality of policy work.\u00a0 But if we get nothing else out of those\u00a0billions of dollars lost<\/a>, the lessons of control theory and Bondarchuk might teach us something about our own approach to teaching.<\/p>\n We\u00a0<\/em>are, in our modest way, in a better situation than the robot tutor which is only plugged into an educational system that it cannot otherwise change. We at least have control over\u00a0our own classes<\/em>\u00a0if not the three other classes the students are taking, the internships, etc. (certainly not pandemics). \u201cIndividualization,\u201d at bottom, means making the right change at the right time, that in turn only being effective when we have some sense of what\u2019s going on. Normally it also means individuals and very exacting decision-making. But the term might be extended a bit. Even if our capacities for getting information and controlling change remain limited \u2013 even if we can\u2019t individualize for\u00a0students<\/em>\u00a0beyond the basics \u2013 we can still \u201cindividualize\u201d within the limits of what we control. We can still apply some of the lessons to our\u00a0classes<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As the Tech Edvocate writes<\/a>, \u201cAI will never take away the job of a teacher who is compassionate and curriculum-centered. These teachers build rapport and relationships with their students while coaching, mentoring, and cheering them toward their academic goals. They communicate on an emotional level with their students. That\u2019s something AI cannot do.\u201d<\/p>\n Ten Predictions<\/a><\/p>\n Higher education is being transformed by the Coronavirus<\/a><\/p>\n Notes on the Academy During the Time of Covid<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nAJR had articles on Pandemic Pedagogy: Annotation as Close Reading<\/a> and Pamphlet Final Projects (with laughter)<\/a><\/p>\n