Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education: An Australian Perspective (SpringerBriefs in Education) 9811644276, 9789811644276

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

Claire Macken Julie Hare Kay Souter

Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education An Australian Perspective

SpringerBriefs in Education

We are delighted to announce SpringerBriefs in Education, an innovative product type that combines elements of both journals and books. Briefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications in education. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the SpringerBriefs in Education allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with a minimal time investment. Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook Collection. In addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase. SpringerBriefs in Education cover a broad range of educational fields such as: Science Education, Higher Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment & Evaluation, Language Education, Mathematics Education, Educational Technology, Medical Education and Educational Policy. SpringerBriefs typically offer an outlet for: • An introduction to a (sub)field in education summarizing and giving an overview of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques and instruments in the field of educational research • A presentation of core educational concepts • An overview of a testing and evaluation method • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic or policy change • An in-depth case study • A literature review • A report/review study of a survey • An elaborated thesis Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Education series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs Author Proposal form. All projects will be submitted to editorial review by editorial advisors. SpringerBriefs are characterized by expedited production schedules with the aim for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise author contracts guarantee that: • an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript • each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author • the author retains the right to post the pre-publication version on his/her website or that of his/her institution

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

Claire Macken · Julie Hare · Kay Souter

Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education An Australian Perspective

Claire Macken Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Julie Hare Lyneham, ACT, Australia

Kay Souter Ovens, VIC, Australia

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISBN 978-981-16-4427-6 ISBN 978-981-16-4428-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

When did it become apparent to you that the default mode of learning for 2020 in higher education in most parts of the world would be fully online? The thought that crossed our minds when it became apparent to us was: “how is the higher education sector going to manage this one?” Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education: An Australian Perspective was started prior to the global outbreak of a pandemic. At that time, there was already a strong narrative around universities of the need for disruption, with calls for the deep, urgent and radical transformation of a system considered by some to be broken and unable to adapt. There was no doubt that higher education was being significantly impacted by and required to respond to the changing environment: • Societal upheaval occasioned by the Fourth Industrial Revolution and related new technologies; • Multiple careers over a lifetime driving lifelong learning and constant upskilling and reskilling; • Worsening graduate outcomes due to unstable economic conditions; • Rising student debt; and • A new relationship between universities and industry. Just to name a few. Layer on top of this, two major catastrophic impacts of COVID-19 for the sector. First, a sudden shift to fully online learning, often considered the “poor cousin” of the pinnacle university form of learning: the lecture. Second, the halt of the entire international student market, which, in some countries, is the financial backbone of their higher education systems. With a global narrative centred around the need for disruption, coupled with the multiple complex and converging problems in the sector, it would be very easy to be negative about the future of this important sector. It would be easy to question whether higher education is even able to embrace radical change in order to respond to disruption. Indeed, the real question might be: is higher education worth saving at all? With disorder, however, comes the opportunity to create a new order. The events occasioned by COVID-19 have given us the opportunity to rethink how learning v

vi

Preface

and teaching should best occur. Higher education can celebrate the innovations occasioned by an unanticipated circumstance. In answer to our question - “How is the education sector going to manage this one?” - educators and students have managed beautifully. Although online learning is not new, overnight adoption at scale certainly is. Higher education successfully adopted new approaches that challenge traditional attitudes to learning, engagement and assessment. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of concepts that will propel higher education into its unknown and unpredictable future. This includes, for example, unbundling degree programs - through micro-credentialing, horizontal and vertical stackable courses, continuous subscription-based services, recognition of prior learning for certification, just-in-time learning options, nano-degrees and similar; all recognised with certification or digital badges. COVID-19 has paved the way for the adoption of new technologies for teaching and learning, such as AR-VR augmented and virtual worlds and chatbots and virtual assistants, new digital media and learning asset creation. COVID-19 presented the opportunity to reimagine the physical and virtual learning environment of higher education to facilitate new ways of on-campus connection, collaboration and pedagogical practice. At its simplest, the global pandemic has propelled digital capability in both educators and learners and allowed new forms of student engagement and discussion. It has raised our consciousness of when and why we should connect in person, on-campus, for both social and learning reasons. Amid the sadness, disbelief and concern we had for our individual and collective wellbeing as a society affected by a global pandemic, for education, there was also a sense of profound optimism. This is an opportunity to embrace change and celebrate the innovations occasioned by an unanticipated circumstance. In Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education: An Australian Perspective, we propose seven suggestions for the future of higher education. First, that the role of higher education in society is understood, and that this drives the values, priorities and strategies of institutions (Chap. 1: Higher Education in a Time of Disruption). Second, that government policies for higher education are responsive to the disruptions occasioned by COVID-19 as the circuit breaker for universities, globally (Chap. 2: Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption). Third, that universities focus on student learning (Chap. 3: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education). Fourth, that universities embrace the use of technology to enhance learning and teaching (Chap. 4: Learning Technologies in Higher Education). Fifth, that universities rethink their approach to embrace access and affordability (Chap. 5: Access and Accessibility). Sixth, that higher education reconceptualises internationalistion as a global delivery model (Chap. 6: Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education). Seventh, that higher education adapts learning space design and purpose for a post-COVID-19 world (Chap. 7: Higher Education Places and Spaces).

Preface

vii

The disruption needed for learning for the future is truly tangible. There are many opportunities to embrace it. Higher education has the opportunity to address some seriously wicked problems. In answer to our question above, this book puts forward the view that higher education is worth saving. Universities must embrace disruption and change and unlearn the past to create a new future. Higher education must continue to be the creator, disseminator and aggregator of the skills, knowledge and competences required for the operation of successful society. It is the place that must be focused on creating a culture and learning environment within which students are not just capable professionals, but also ethically centred, sensitive intellectuals and critical citizens. We hope that you enjoy reading Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education: An Australian Perspective. Melbourne, VIC, Australia Canberra ACT, Australia Melbourne, VIC, Australia April 2021

Claire Macken Julie Hare Kay Souter

Contents

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction: Higher Education Requires Radical Change . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Educative Purpose of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Role of Higher Education is to Prepare Students for the Future of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Role of Higher Education is to Develop Students’ Lifelong Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3

7 9 11

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Higher Education is Facing a Reckoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Higher Education in the Post-COVID-19 World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Policy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Funding and Tuition Fees in the Time of COVID-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Governments, Universities and International Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Lifelong Learning–Second, Third and Fourth Careers . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Creating a Post-School Education Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Independent Oversight of Policy and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 16 17 19 21 22 23 26 27 29

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 A Focus on Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Digital Skills are just as Important as Discipline Knowledge . . . . . . 3.3 Blended and Online Learning are Both Important in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Students are not Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Assessment is the Way to Measure Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 In Learning, Life Experience Should Have Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 The Five Big Questions of Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 33 36

5

38 41 42 45 47 49

ix

x

Contents

4 Learning Technologies in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 There Are Multiple Technologies Available for Learning . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Augmented, Virtual Reality and Higher Education Learning . . . . . . 4.3 Wearables and Higher Education Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Artificial Intelligence, Adaptive Learning and Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Learning in Higher Education Can Be Enhanced by Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Universities and Academics Must Modernise and Develop Digital Skills to Effectively Teach Modern Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Higher Education Can also Improve Through Technology . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 54 55

5 Access and Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Higher Education, Equity and the Emerging Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Is Higher Education Worth the Price? Debt and Affordability . . . . . 5.3 Digital Equity Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Can Technology Address the Equity Paradox? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Should Online Learning Be Cheaper Than On-Campus? . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Entry into University is Fundamentally Unfair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Selection into High-Demand Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 The Very High Cost of Dropping Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 One Size Does not Fit All: Diversity Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.1 Women, Outcomes and Stubborn Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 65 66 68 69 70 71 74 75 75 77 79

6 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education . . . . . . . . 6.1 Globalisation and Internationalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Higher Education in the Time of COVID-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Student Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 83 85 86 88

56 57 59 60 62

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.1 How to Design a Campus: Pandemic Urgencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.2 Campuses, Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 7.4 The Walled University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.5 Community at the Bottom of a Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.6 Virtual Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 7.7 Synchronous and Asynchronous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.8 Asynchronous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7.9 Social Life: Paying for the Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Contents

8 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Predicting the Future of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 The Role of Higher Education is Understood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Higher Education is not a Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 A New Approach to Change in Higher Education is Required . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

107 107 110 110 113 115 116

Chapter 1

Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

Abstract This chapter explains how higher education is operating in a time of disruption and puts forward the view that it must embrace radical change to survive. To explain why the continued survival of the sector is necessary, this chapter questions the very purpose of higher education. After briefly considering the various theories, this chapter explains that this book will focus particularly on the education function of higher education, and in doing so, the obligations on higher education institutions to fulfil this purpose. This chapter then proposes three radical ideas for the future of higher education. First, a radical overhaul of degrees to reflect the different world of careers graduates are entering into tomorrow. This proposes qualifications that reflect the changing nature of industry and employment through changes occasioned by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Second, the need to develop a student’s learning skills, particularly focused on digital competencies and the soft skills, competencies and knowledge students require to adapt to multiple, unknown future careers. This includes a focus on lifelong learning and opportunities to develop personal capabilities such as self-efficacy, global outlook, flexibility, creativity and critical thinking, to name a few. Third, higher education should embrace the potential of unbounded degrees, including a standardised, widely recognisable micro-credential system as recognised packages of learning. Keywords Higher Education Disruption · Unbundled Degrees · Future of Work · Lifelong Learning · Higher Education Disaggregation · Fourth Industrial Revolution · Micro-Credentials

1.1 Introduction: Higher Education Requires Radical Change Right now, the narrative around universities is one of disruption. The word “disrupt” means to “drastically alter or destroy the structure of” (dictionary.com). At the most extreme level, the future of higher education is predicted to be either radically altered or doomed to irrelevance. For years, there have been calls for deep, urgent and radical transformation of the system as the models of higher education that marched

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_1

1

2

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

triumphantly across the globe in the second half of the twentieth century are shattered (Rizvi et al. 2013). The demise of higher education has been long predicted. For example, Crisis on the Campus (1900), The Campus Unrest (1970) and The Education Crisis (1998) all spoke of the demise of the modern university. COVID-19 has prompted another fresh round of predictions of the end of the higher education sector. One recent study, for example, predicts that higher education will face: diminished student capacity and preference for travel to undertake international education; diminished attractiveness of certain degrees and programs; diminished capacity for governments to invest in higher education; uncertain prospects for university-delivered transnational education; and reorganisation of universities and their workforces (Croucher & Locke, 2020). In terms of COVID-19, amongst the sadness, disbelief and concern we have for our individual and collective wellbeing as a society affected by a global pandemic, for education, there is also a sense of optimism. As explored later in this chapter, it is unlikely all universities will survive. The disruption needed for the future of higher education to be realised is truly here and tangible today. The sector has already begun to address some seriously wicked problems. Higher education can celebrate the innovations occasioned by an unanticipated circumstance. Higher education is seen as a slow-moving slumbering beast but in fact, if you think about the turnaround required for universities to respond to COVID-19, it is impressive. This change to higher education is not what everyone wanted, or anyone expected. Unsurprisingly, educators and students have managed–for the most part– well. Although online learning is not new, overnight adoption at the scale COVID19 required in Australian higher education, was. Educators and institutions have successfully adopted new approaches that challenge traditional ways of learning, engagement and assessment. Higher education institutions worldwide have taken immediate fiscal measures to respond to the dramatic future they face. Most of all, COVID-19 has raised many questions for universities, such as the role of the campus, of internationalisation and even the role of expertise. COVID-19 has presented the opportunity for the higher education sector to reimagine the physical and virtual learning environment of higher education moving forward. As discussed in Chap. 7, higher education has seen a renaissance with new student spaces, online and in person, to facilitate new ways of on-campus connection, collaboration and pedagogical practice. Yet, right now, higher education is at a major crossroads. The impact of massive shifts in society due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the double whammy of COVID-19 leads to an entire sector requiring deep, urgent, radical change. Without change, some higher education institutions will simply not survive. Worse, slow moving institutions will just end up becoming slowly obsolete, dying out eventually, with mediocre education and their soul lost along the way. A quote by Dahrendorf sums this up: “Stagnant universities are expensive and ineffectual monuments to a status quo which is more likely to be a status quote ante, yesterday’s world preserved in aspic” (Guyana Chronicle 2011).

1.1 Introduction: Higher Education Requires Radical Change

3

The ultimate radical suggestion for this entire book is simple. Universities must respond to the multiple calls for reform of a broken system (Enders et al., 2011). Universities must take advantage of the immense “once-in-a-generation” opportunity for higher education to put “dysfunctional strategies behind them” (Devinney and Dowling, 2020). For this reason, this book contains throughout several radical ideas that are solution-focused for the future of higher education, based on an Australian perspective. These ideas are proffered with the belief in higher education itself, and that it must survive and adapt because of the role that it plays in society. This first chapter asks the questions: Why is it the case that universities exist and why should they do so in the future? What is the purpose of higher education? Is it even worth fighting for?

1.2 The Educative Purpose of Higher Education The purpose of a university is open to debate. Universities are complex institutions. They do not exist simply to teach students and confer degrees but have other important purposes as well. Those purposes are contested and can be framed in terms of general competing theories. First, the liberal theory would say universities are communities dedicated to the learning and personal development of their members, including students. Second, the professional formation theory would say universities are sources of expertise and vocational identity. Third, the research engine theory and/or the business and industry services theory would say universities are creators, testers and sites for the evaluation and application of new knowledge. Fourth, the civic and community engagement theory would say universities are important contributors to society and nations (Epigeum 2012). Outside of these theories, some see the university as a “guardian of reason, inquiry and philosophical openness, preserving pure inquiry from dominant public opinions” (Pearson, 2018). Others may see the university as a mechanism for social mobility: allowing more people to transform their lives at the expense of academic rigour, as commentators such as Lord Willetts (former United Kingdom MP for universities) and Carl Lygo (founding Vice Chancellor of BPP University) have controversially commented (Pearson, 2018). The educational purpose of a university education is not focused on preparing an individual for their role in the future workforce (Ashwin, 2020). Rather, “the educational purpose of a higher education is to bring students into a transformational relationship with knowledge that changes their sense of who they are and what they can do in the world.” (Ashwin, 2020). In terms of students, therefore, the general purpose of the university is to equip students with the knowledge and skills they require to contribute to society (Deloitte Economics, 2015). A recent framework to inform university learning characterised the purpose of learning in higher education through seven principles:

4

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

a university education provides a learning experience that broadens students’ knowing and being for life beyond the classroom; learning occurs in context, and context can be used to enhance the learning experience; emotions play a role in how and why students learn; the learning experience can be enhanced by leveraging the social dynamics; challenge and difficulty can be beneficial for students’ learning process; when students employ effective methods of thinking and understand how they learn, they can improve the way they learn; and learning is built on prior knowledge and engages students in deep and meaningful thinking and feeling (Carroll et al., 2019).

It is generally accepted today–in Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand (NZ) and Canada at least–that there are three key functions of a modern higher education institution: teaching, research and service. In Australia, for example, these functions are deeply ingrained in all aspects of higher education, from legislation to modern enterprise agreements. The focus of this book is the learning and teaching function of higher education; one that we contend is critically important. Quite simply, the purpose of higher education is education. As Badat explains, teaching and learning relates to the “dissemination of knowledge and the formation and cultivation of the cognitive character of students” (Badat, 2009). Drawing on the work of the Task Force on Higher Education and Society 2000, Badat summarises the purpose of higher education as producing graduates who “can think effectively and critically; have achieved depth in some field of knowledge; and have a critical appreciation of the ways in which we gain knowledge and understanding of the universe, of society, and of ourselves” (Badat, 2009). As a result of university education, graduates must have a broad knowledge of culture, making decisions by reference to the wider world and an understanding of moral and ethical problems (Badat, 2009). As digitisation continues at pace this is more critical than ever before, with productivity and revenue gains needing to be balanced and debated against human and societal impacts. The world needs creative, intellectual, emotionally aware and competent thinkers and leaders who are resilient and able to find opportunity in change. A student needs to be mindful of global implications, flexible, forward-thinking and very comfortable with technology as a tool and as a solution. Students should have the capability to create new knowledge, challenge, debate and have thoughtful engagement in wider society. This must take place within both a local and global context, where students can engage with important issues facing our world.

1.3 The Role of Higher Education is to Prepare Students …

5

1.3 The Role of Higher Education is to Prepare Students for the Future of Work During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a job was typically for life. Thirtyplus years in the one company, a lifelong relationship and five-yearly achievement plaques to retirement would see you through. The middle class, suburbia and lifelong commitment to an employer was the consequence of the post-WWII economic boom. Climbing the ladder in a bureaucratic, fixed and predictable manner would be a certain career path. For baby boomers, a “career” would be who you are, as well as what you do. It is your very identity as a lawyer, doctor, engineer, artist, businessperson or indeed, an academic. A career in this sense suits itself to hierarchy based on experience and time. Older meant wiser (Bersin, 2020). The future career of a young person today will be punctuated by uncertainty and unpredictability. In the future, a young person is unlikely to bind up their identity with a single employer, or even profession. In professional fields, expertise has a short shelf-life. Technical skills and knowledge must be constantly renewed and upskilled as they become obsolete tomorrow (Bersin, 2020). Career success does not depend on one big decision in late teens or early 20s but having a learning mindset to relentlessly learn and try new things. As explored in Chap. 2, the future of jobs reiterates the importance of focusing on human and social skills alongside technical or specialist skills in education. A problem with higher education today is that its focus is completely the wrong way around. The choices of degrees in university are largely structured according to professions mirroring the approach to careers of post-WWII society. The focus is sometimes wholly on technical, and sometimes out-of-date, knowledge. A study by Deloitte, for example, concluded that up to 40 per cent of current tertiary degrees will soon be completely obsolete (Halloran & Friday, 2018). In addition, of the 3,300 + past and current university students surveyed by the company, 46 per cent felt their degree needed to be overhauled considering the impact of current and emerging digital technology (Halloran & Friday, 2018). This sentiment is a global one: an Intern Tech study of 2,000 British adults revealed that 26 per cent of graduates regretted completing their degrees and 28% believed that the education that they received was outdated (Compute Scotland, 2020). For many in higher education, the idea that education should be linked to an eventual job outcome is a controversial topic. It is a topic that governments have struggled with, and have not always managed to get right, following the massification of higher education from the 1960s onwards. In the 1980s various governments saw the surge in demand for degrees and colleges of advanced education and polytechnics–institutions that offered shorter qualifications with close links to labour markets and a focus on part-time, mature-age study into universities. What that created was a giant gap between vocational colleges and universities, and no bridge between the two. In 2018, OECD’s global report The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030 explored the indefinite state of enterprise: “The future is uncertain, and we cannot predict it; but we need to be open and ready for it. [We can prepare students]

6

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

for jobs that have not yet been created, for technologies that have not yet been invented, to solve problems that have not yet been anticipated” (OECD 2015). This ethos of adaptability and prescience will be the greatest ally of workers in a dynamic, unpredictable world. Rather than being forced to anticipate each future development, they must be able to respond flexibly and quickly to new skill pathways and industrial opportunities. For this reason, education is the most powerful tool that can be leveraged against disruption. Future employees must be able to interact with machines, and tertiary education in particular must be capable of developing those skill sets, both for the sake of the global economy, and to ensure its own survival amidst a variety of alternative education providers. The penny is beginning to drop as major skill shortages are emerging and as graduate rewards begin to diminish. As the inimitable British academic Alison Wolf told The Australian newspaper in 2016: “It is morally outrageous that we encourage young people to take out these big loans (for university) and give up years of their lives when it is increasingly obvious that in some universities the average earnings of graduates is lower than the average salary of non-graduates” (Hare, 2016). The OECD, in a 2018 report on apprenticeships, said work-based learning was an apt way of dealing with a digitally disrupted and unpredictable future (Kis, 2018). It sees apprenticeships growing in attractiveness to both blue- and white-collar employment across a wide range of skills, occupations and professions (Kis, 2018). We need to stop thinking about higher education as being separate from vocational or further education, although policymakers around the globe are struggling to create the equivalent of a unified tertiary education sector. A 2018 KPMG report noted the post-school education sector should be reimagined as an “ecosystem, not as a stratified, hierarchical one, but as flipped on its side, with different types of providers each aiming to be best of their type” (Parker et al., 2018). Indeed, tertiary education and training institutions should be on a level playing field in regard to regulation, funding and student access to government-backed loans systems. Higher education must have a goal of designing learning programs that provide the kinds of knowledge, skills and competencies graduates require to succeed. This includes striking a balance between creating curricula that addresses the immediate needs of work, whilst also projecting to a future and future occupations that are, as yet, uncertain. The identification of the needs of work are being developed by technology companies based on predictive analytics. Burning Glass Technologies, for example, provides real-time labour market data products and analysis by scraping millions of job postings and resumes on the internet to provide insights into new in-demand skills for the changing job market. Faethm, an AI analytics software as a service platform, shows the impact of automation and technology on current workforces and the types of characteristics needed to effect both role change and capability uplift. Setting the conditions for a learner to love learning, over their lifetime, will best serve both an individual and society itself. This goal achieves the function of higher education as a promotion of economic growth, and the preparation of students to contribute to the labour market and economy.

1.4 The Role of Higher Education is to Develop Students’ …

7

1.4 The Role of Higher Education is to Develop Students’ Lifelong Skills Today’s school leavers might be called ‘Generation Z’. They are looking to a future and careers in the context of a world that is constantly changing, technologically enhanced and globalised. The new normal for these learners is uncertainty. These students have just experienced this first-hand as their learning environment radically changed, literally overnight, to online learning as a global reaction to a pandemic. Having lived through COVID-19, young people are looking for a university education that will give them the skills required to be agile and flexible because of the uncertainty they have witnessed and will continue to experience through their working lives. They are also looking to ensure their input is valued and has a clear impact, with positive economic and social outcomes. For these students, there is no conceivable past or future in which technology does not play a part. As post-millennials, they first started using Instagram at the age of ten. To operate in any employment, they will need to know new technologies and how they work and alter enterprise, including concepts such as end-to-end digitisation and personal and organisational cyber resilience. This will be enabled by transformative technologies such as machine learning, artificial intelligence, the internet of things, process automation, micro-personalisation and blockchain; technologies that will become increasingly ubiquitous. Imagine too, the future world these graduates will enter. For businesses, and indeed society more generally, disruption has become ‘the new normal’. Successful employers are embracing digital transformation in an increasingly technologydominated world, and disruptive trends are requiring businesses to be agile, responsive and adaptable. Embedding innovation and creativity in business is required just to keep up with the pace of change. Being able to apply and test new ideas and strategies in real time is not only expected but required. For the world of work, the future is also very human. Jobs require us to “use our hearts”, as the “interpersonal and creative roles, with uniquely human skills, like creativity, customer service, care for others, and collaboration … are hardest of all to mechanise” (Deloitte Economics, 2015). A young person today, as well as their current and future employers, must think of learning as lifelong. This is a hugely radical idea in that it requires a rethink of the role and identity of higher education itself. Lifelong learning recognises that learning is contextual. Experiential based learning means that the learning experience is more relevant, meaningful and engaging (Carroll et al., 2019). Universities must, therefore, have a lifelong relationship with learners because learning is continuous. For higher education this means embracing new approaches such as subscription models and the disaggregation of degree programs into smaller components to suit the learning needs of lifelong learners. Stanford’s Open Loop University is one example of this. Based on a vision as to what education would look like in 2025, students enter an “open loop” which sees them come and go from university multiple times through their professional lives, as they seek to reboot and upskill their knowledge

8

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

and skills (Stanford 2025/2020). A focus on lifelong learning would also require new higher education business models. The disaggregation of traditional undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs would instead focus on digital badging, open passports, nano degrees and stackable qualifications. The explosion of micro-credentialing in higher education, along with disaggregation, also raises the question as to whether there is a continued need for full degree programs in university? The answer is yes, as learning also achieves other functionality other than just employability skills, knowledge and competencies. University education is a learning experience that broadens students’ knowing and being for life (Carroll et al., 2019). University education is a transformational journey of students to become citizens of the world, able to ethically consume, evaluate, create, transform and apply knowledge in their everyday life, as well as their occupation, now and into the future (Carroll et al., 2019). Higher education must, however, also rethink the entire curriculum of professional degrees. This would include embracing a new concept of liberal humanities, science or technology as a basic undergraduate program of study, focused on deliberate skill development. The role of higher education is to create opportunities for students to develop their personal capabilities such as self-efficacy; global outlook and cultural awareness; flexibility; creativity; digital literacy; critical thinking; and the ability to lead and succeed in changing environments. Higher education should also give graduates the ability to apply theory and principles to a specialised or range of disciplines. Finally, higher education should provide a program that helps learners to identify their future path and develop a professional identity that best suits their own passions and interests: to go wherever the future leads. This means that teaching and learning in higher education should also focus on developing lifelong skills. This must encompass digitally enabled learning and digital capabilities, of both students and their teachers. There is more about these topics in Chaps. 3 and 4, but as a starter, in addition to the digital skills considered above, there are also essential human skills that employer’s value both today and in the future. If you put together the various lists of skills out there and rank these skills in order, the overall themes are almost always the same (World Economic Forum 2018; Foundation for Young Australians, 2017; HolonIQ, 2019; Berger 2016). Without question, some human skills are valued almost universally: complex problem solving, communication, critical thinking, creativity, teamwork and learning. In terms of automation, these are also skills that are uniquely human. These are skills which leverage the human brain in a way that current computers are incapable of processing. In the words of AlphaBeta’s Future Skills Report they require “ideas and wisdom that are highly subjective, context-specific, and related to intuition and personal experience”, and are thus highly difficult to codify for machines (AlphaBeta Strategy x economics 2019). This echoes the findings of the 2018 Future of Jobs Report which found that–as automation begins to intrude upon industry–distinctly human skills will become even more valuable (World Economic Forum 2018). The exponential rate of technological innovation

1.4 The Role of Higher Education is to Develop Students’ …

9

will make transferrable, universally applicable skills vital to survive in enterprise (Big Think Edge, 2011).

1.5 Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education In answer to the question posed above, when you consider the purpose of higher education, it is certainly worth fighting for. Higher education must continue to play a role in equipping current and future students for the new post-COVID-19 economy and prepare students for workplaces and a society that is rapidly changing. Higher education must continue to be the creator, disseminator and aggregator of the skills, knowledge and competences required for the operation of successful society. It must continue to remain relevant and be a modern, responsive and efficient system that is economically sound for governments and affordable for individuals. To achieve these goals this chapter suggests some radical ideas. First, a radical overhaul of degrees to reflect the different world of careers graduates will be entering. This proposes qualifications that reflect the changing nature of industry and employment through changes occasioned by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Second, development of students’ learning skills, particularly focused on digital competencies and the soft skills, competencies and knowledge students require to adapt to multiple, unknown future careers. This includes a focus on lifelong learning and opportunities to develop personal capabilities such as self-efficacy, a global outlook, flexibility, creativity and critical thinking. Third, higher education should embrace the potential of unbounded degrees, including a standardised, widely recognisable micro-credential system as recognised packages of learning. The rest of this book continues to provide solutions to position higher education for the future. Chapter 2 proposes suggestions relating to higher education policy and funding arrangements, particularly focused in the Australian context. Chapter 3 focuses on the changes that should be made relating to learning and teaching in higher education to respond to a time of disruption. In terms of radical suggestions, this chapter first proposes focusing on what the student does and consider the fundamentals of learning design: learning is about the interaction between the learner, teacher and content. As a second radical suggestion, this chapter proposes embracing both online and blended learning, recognising that each has an audience and a place. The third radical suggestion of this chapter is–when it comes to learning–to treat students as students, not customers. When it comes to learning, the customer is not always right. The fourth radical suggestion in this chapter is that assessment should be the way to measure student learning. Authentic assessment as contextualised learning, and less emphasis on exams, is an obvious approach. The fifth radical suggestion in this chapter is that higher education should recognise life experience and embrace micro-credentials and disaggregated degrees. The final radical idea of this chapter is that a university knows who its students are and has answers to the big questions of teaching and learning. These include: Who are the learners? How important is a

10

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

campus-experience for learning? How is learning designed and assessed? Who are the educators? How is success measured? Chapter 4 discusses the use of technologies to enhance learning and teaching and, importantly, the importance of digital competencies for learners today given there is no conceivable future in which technology will not play a part. This chapter explains how learning in higher education can be enhanced by technologies and proposes that universities must embed digital skills in the curriculum. In order to do this, there is also a need to modernise academics in the digital age. Chapter 5 discusses access and equity, one of the underpinning drivers of higher education systems. Equity is fundamental to the mission of higher education policy and practice. Technology potentially plays an invaluable role by giving high-quality and low-cost access to higher education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, regulation and student support are critical to ensure the potential of online learning is fulfilled. At the same time, universities must become much more flexible in what they deliver, how they deliver and how they structure and award qualifications. Fundamental to this is a rethinking of the relationship between vocational and higher education to create a unified ‘ecosystem’ that does not discriminate or prioritise one form of learning or one system of education against another. Central to all equity policy must be a focus on student-centred learning in all its myriad forms. Chapter 6 considers the meaning of globalisation and internationalisation in higher education, and their effect on the development of universities in the twenty-first century. Already somewhat problematic in a political and educational sense, the global pandemic turned these problems into financial, humanitarian, conceptual and educational emergencies. The fantasy of the safe and frictionless movement of goods and citizens fell apart under the pressure of closed borders and explosive infections. The fact that public funding had been cut over many years from universities across the world, which led to reliance on international student fees to support research activities, meant that the sudden loss of students was financially damaging. Students were resistant to paying very high fees for online learning, and domestic students too (or their parents) were worried about the safety of dormitories, lecture theatres, student parties and so on. This chapter contends that higher education must, therefore, reconceptualise internationalisation as a “global delivery model”. This is not the remote delivery of courses conceived as face-to-face, but carefully developed “hybrid transnational education”: well-designed online models delivered by local educators in a partnership model, and where the location of the student is an inherent part of the experience. In the hybrid transnational university, equity and student employability are key issues, and core knowledge will be embedded in and critiqued by local culture. This implies that internationalisation will be a social good, rather than a money-making venture. Chapter 7 considers the purpose and design of learning spaces. Learning spaces in the early twenty-first century emphasised glamour features as finances permitted. We propose that safety, learning, aesthetics and student needs drive design. In addition, universities need to be integrated into the life of their town and suburb, not walled off spaces.

1.5 Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education

11

Chapter 8 concludes by providing seven suggestions for the future of higher education. First, that the role of higher education in society is understood, and that this drives the values, priorities and strategies of institutions (This Chapter : Higher Education in a Time of Disruption). Second, that government policies for higher education are responsive to the disruptions occasioned by COVID-19 as the circuit breaker for universities, globally (Chap. 2: Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption). Third, that universities focus on student learning (Chap. 3: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education). Fourth, that universities embrace the use of technology to enhance learning and teaching (Chap. 4: Learning Technologies in Higher Education). Fifth, that universities rethink their approach to embrace access and affordability (Chap. 5: Access and Accessibility). Sixth, that higher education reconceptualises internationalistion as a global delivery model (Chap. 6: Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education). Seventh, that higher education adapts learning space design and purpose for a post-COVID-19 world (Chap. 7: Higher Education Places and Spaces). This chapter also summarises the various predictions on how higher education will change, from a variety of authors, and discusses why change is so difficult in higher education institutions.

References AlphaBeta Strategy x economics. (2019). Future skills: To adapt to the future of work, australians will undertake a third more education and training and change what, when and how we learn. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://alphabeta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/googleskills-report.pdf Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury Academic. Australian Government Department of Education, (2020). What the jobs future looks like for young Australians. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.employment.gov.au/newsroom/ what-jobs-future-looks-young-australians Badat, S. (2009). The role of higher education in society: Valuing higher education. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.academia.edu/2389150/THE_ROLE_OF_HIGHER_ EDUCATION_IN_SOCIETY_VALUING_HIGHER_EDUCATION Berger, G., Linked In. (2016). Data reveals the most in-demand soft skills among candidates. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/trendsand-research/2016/most-indemand-soft-skills Bersin, J. (2020). Catch the wave: The 21st-century career. Deloitte. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-review/issue-21/changing-natureof-careers-in-21st-century.html Big Think Edge. (2011). Big idea: Technology grows exponentially. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://bigthink.com/think-tank/big-idea-technology-grows-exponentially Carroll, A., Lodge, J. M., Bagraith, R., Nugent, A., Matthews, K., & Sah, P. (2019). Higher education learning framework: An evidence-informed model for university learning. The University of Queensland. Compute Scotland. (2020). UK’s failing graduates. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// www.computescotland.com/uks-failing-graduates-9521.php

12

1 Higher Education in the Time of Disruption

Croucher, G., Locke, W. (2020). A post-coronavirus pandemic world: some possible trends and their implications for Australian higher education. Melbourne CSHE discussion paper. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://melbournecshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/ 3371941/a-post-coronavirus-world-for-higher-education_final.pdf Deloitte Economics. (2015). The importance of universities to Australia’s prosperity: Contributing to the success of the nation a report for universities Australia. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/articles/importance-universities-austra lias-prosperity.html Devinney, T., Dowling, G. (2020). Is this the crisis higher education needs to have?. Times Higher Education. May 14. Dictonary.com. (2020). DisruptDisruption. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.enc yclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/english-vocabulary-d/ disruptdisrupt Enders, J., de Boer, H. F., & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.). (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. Springer. Epigeum Ltd. (2012). The university context: An introduction. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.epigeum.com/downloads/ulm_accessible/uk/01_intro/html/course_ files/in_2_10.html Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The new work smarts: Thriving in the new world order. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.fya.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/FYA_ TheNewWorkSmarts_July2017.pdf Halloran, L., Friday, C. (2018). Can the universities of today lead learning for tomorrow? The university of the future. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ ey-com/en_au/topics/government-and-public-sector/ey-university-of-the-future-2030.pdf Hare, J. (2016). Professor Alison Wolf decries universities’ open door policy. The Weekend Australian, June 1. HolonIQ. (2019). Education in 2030: Five scenarios for the future of learning and talent. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.holoniq.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HolonIQ-Edu cation-in-2030.pdf Kis, V. (2018). Work-based learning for youth at risk: Getting employers on board. OECD. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/Work-based_Lea rning_For_Youth_At_Risk-Getting_Employers_On_Board.pdf OECD. (2018). The Future of education and skills education 2030. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%2520Position%2520Paper%2520(05. 04.2018).pdf+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in Parker, S., Dempster, A., & Warburton, M. (2018). Reimagining tertiary education: From binary system to ecosystem. KPMG. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps://home.kpmg/content/ dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/reimagining-tertiary-education-executive-summary.pdf Pearson. (2018). What is the purpose of a university?. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps:// www.pearson.com/uk/educators/higher-education-educators/course-development-blog/2018/ 04/what-is-the-purpose-of-a-university-.html Rizvi, S., Donnelly, K., & Barber, M. (2013). An avalanche is coming: higher education and the revolution ahead. IPPR Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps://www.ippr.org/publications/ an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and-the-revolution-ahead Staff Reporter. (2011). Stagnant universities and ineffectual monuments, Guyana Chronicle. April 18. Stanford 2025. (2020). Open loop university. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttp://www.sta nford2025.com/open-loop-university World economic forum: Centre for the new economy and society. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_ of_Jobs_2018.pdf

References

13

Zhang, L. (2020). How careers have changed (and How to manage yours accordingly). Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps://www.themuse.com/advice/how-careers-have-cha nged-and-how-to-manage-yours-accordingly

Chapter 2

Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

Abstract This chapter looks at why 2020 marked the beginning of rapid and profound transformation in how universities organised themselves and their educational offerings. It also looks at how governments, faced with massive disruption caused by the dual forces of COVID-19 and digital advances, must adapt and adjust the policy landscape to keep up. We argue that even in normal circumstances governments struggle to write, approve, fund and roll out policies that keep up with disruptive events, and that COVID-19 has amplified this to a remarkable degree. We argue that universities have never been more central to rebuilding social solidarity and mobility in fractured societies, but that governments may cynically use the chaos caused by such disruption to push through cost-saving measures and pro-market policies. This is especially relevant given the loss of international student revenue, which may never return to pre-pandemic levels. We argue that with the combined influences of COVID-19 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the idea of what it means to be an “educated person” has changed and that universities must embrace new models for the acquisition of skills–models that include interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches that mesh with micro-credentials and short courses that can be stacked and built into new credentials. We argue that the shift to online access under COVID19 has been a boon to universities and will advance how they teach, but that major consideration has to be given to cost and equity, and that measures must be put in place to ensure the sector is not bifurcated into the haves (the wealthy) and the have-nots (everyone else). We also argue that universities and government policy must finally fully embrace the notion of lifelong learning: that education will have multiple touchpoints in people’s lives as they enter and exit the sector, constantly renegotiating their work skills and career trajectories. And finally, we argue, that for a seamless lifelong learning approach to be possible the gap between vocational and higher education must be bridged via a single tertiary education funding model which can only be achieved if there is independent oversight of policy and funding. Keywords Higher Education Policy · Tuition Fees · Higher Education Funding · Lifelong Learning · Higher Education and Covid-19 · Fourth Industrial Revolution · International Students · Higher Education Disruption

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_2

15

16

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

2.1 Higher Education is Facing a Reckoning After 50 years of relentless growth, universities find themselves at a crossroads. Hit by unrelenting turbulence from globalisation, massification, the digital economy and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hard to think of another time in history in which the trajectory of higher education has been so unpredictable. In fact, the extent of the disruption caused by the dual forces of COVID-19 and digital advancement will likely coalesce and hasten an inevitable new path for higher education–the unbundling and rebundling of the core components of a university as a place of education. It is the challenge of governments across the world for education policy to enable, promote and sustain this progress so that it will ultimately benefit students without undermining quality. There are philosophical, economic, legal and quality assurance concerns that will need to be understood and harnessed if an ethos of adaptability is to be adopted. As we argue in Chap. 1, universities are central to economic, social and individual wellbeing. Universities are the producers of new knowledge, centres of professional learning, engines of innovation and prosperity, major employers in metropolises and regional centres; they attract educated and highly skilled migrants to our shores, give industry a competitive edge and, perhaps most importantly, are drivers of equality and opportunity. Yet, as Oxford University’s Simon Marginson has pointed out, universities, in terms of government policy, are too often seen in isolation and as a cost burden that should be shifted onto students (Marginson, 2016). Universities alone, Marginson argues, cannot drive prosperity or tackle systemic disadvantage and poverty, which are shaped by taxation, welfare and social justice policies. Marginson and others have pointed to the fact that increasingly higher education is seen by governments as the servant of “high capitalism” (Marginson, 2016). “Official policy models higher education as a market and has narrowed its purpose to the enhancement of individual earnings and employability, partly to justify the everrising tuition fees” (Marginson, 2016). While using free market nomenclature on the one hand and opening the doors to private providers–ostensibly to provide competition and diversity of choice–on the other, governments tightly control student fees and places in public institutions and ration out other funding packets with increasing frugality. This, in turn, is leading to a fracturing of the sector into the haves (elite research-intensive institutions with long histories and deep pockets) and the have-notso-much (the massified outer suburban and regional institutions which educate the masses and have traditionally provided the ladder to opportunity). It is predicted that COVID-19 will further hasten this fracturing and bifurcation. As Marginson argues: “In this quasi-aristocratic economics of education, mass institutions are losing social value and the collective public benefits of universities are unmonitored, underfunded and ignored. In short, governments expect both too much and too little of higher education, and its contribution to the common good is being eroded. Yet this sector can play a key role in rebuilding social solidarity and mobility in fractured societies” (Marginson, 2016). Marginson wrote this back in 2016 and the words are truer now five years later, with the impact of the pandemic, years of underfunding,

2.1 Higher Education is Facing a Reckoning

17

plummeting international enrolments and mass unemployment flowing through to university admissions and revenue streams. If ever there was a time that universities are needed to rebuild social solidarity and mobility in fractured societies, that moment is now. This must be done against a backdrop of pandemic-induced mass adoption of online learning pedagogies and technologies, and excellence in learning and teaching concepts explored further in Chap. 3. This must be done while AI and robotics–the Fourth Industrial Revolution– unfolds on an increasingly rapid trajectory, as explored further in Chap. 4. It must be done while a profound philosophical shift toward “openness”–which promotes the notion that access to learning should not be hindered by barriers based on age, wealth, gender or time–creates the circumstances by which new demographics of students enter education. In this chapter we will explore the role of government policy in times of extreme social disorder.

2.2 Higher Education in the Post-COVID-19 World To paraphrase Vladimir Lenin, there are years and decades when not very much happens at all, and then weeks when decades happen. We are living in such a time. Volatility is the new normal. It has never been harder to predict what the future will hold. At the time of writing this book, the world was still very much in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. Second and third waves of the virus were sending shocks through the global economy. The new normal was one of lockdowns, working and studying from home, online shopping and relentless handwashing and mask-wearing. With most university models centred around the concept of place and campus, as further explored in Chap. 6, and with the variable levels of digital competency of academic staff a degree of blended learning, as explored in Chap. 4, COVID19 has hit higher education, worldwide, with the largest shockforce imaginable–it required a sudden shift to online learning. The World Bank (2020) estimated that on 8 April, 2020, universities and tertiary education institutions were closed in 175 countries, affecting 220 million post-secondary students. As we argue in Chap. 6, almost overnight, the mass migration of students from their home countries to their place of study came to a grinding halt. In Australia, the federal government’s response was to exclude universities from its COVID-19 support package, which included programs such as JobKeeper–an AUD$130billion wage subsidy for employees to buffer the devastation of COVID19 (Moodie, 2020). Instead, universities received a relief package, which guaranteed funding for domestic students but failed to meet the giant financial hole inflicted upon universities by the loss of international students. Indeed, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 143,810 international students arrived in Australia in July 2019. In July 2020 that figure was less than 40 (Derwin, 2020). In an environment where nearly every Australian university has had to restructure and reduce staff, which has conservatively been estimated to have affected

18

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

21,000 jobs in just a six-month period (Derwin, 2020) it really does raise the question of ‘why?’ Moodie (2020) hypothesises that the exclusion of universities from JobKeeper is consistent with a long history of Australian conservative politicians attacking researchers. He also considers the exclusion from JobKeeper another way to “keep universities in their place” in relation to the view of successive Australian governments and the transition from elite to mass to universal systems of education (Moodie, 2020). Other Conservative governments responded differently. In the United Kingdom, universities were given access to a range of support schemes, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to safeguard staff jobs (United Kingdom (UK) Government, 2020). The UK Government also pushed forward tuition fee payments, ensuring that providers received more cash in the first term of the 2020– 21 academic year and were therefore able to better manage financial risks over the autumn. For domestic students, particularly those enrolled at residential colleges, nothing could have predicted the enormity of the shock waves COVID-19 sent shuddering through campus life. As summer was welcomed into the Northern Hemisphere, with Australia and New Zealand managing to keep the virus mostly under control, universities, tentatively began opening their doors. Mitch Daniels, the President of Purdue University in the United States, explained to a United States Senate committee hearing what he was doing to ensure the safe reopening of his campus to 45,000 students for the fall semester (Esaki-Smith, 2020). Class sizes were halved, special quarantine facilities for 500 residential students had been set aside and residences de-densified. He had also bought 1.6 kms of Plexiglass to shield staff from students. Purdue, like other universities, was also being forced to rethink ‘what clean means’. Indiana University, in the meantime, had teamed up with a healthcare provider to provide “screening, testing and management” of the virus (Esaki-Smith, 2020). Despite these efforts, college campuses–along with abattoirs and aged care homes–across the US became epicentres for the spread of the virus (Hubler and Hartocollis, 2020). In Australia, where students tend to go to the university closest to their residential postcode and the vast majority do not move into on-campus housing, infection spread among students was far more contained than in the United States. While some campuses across the globe cautiously opened their doors for spring/autumn semester, others chose to continue to teach wholly online. This was possible because in March 2020 universities across the globe did–in a matter of weeks–what had previously been considered impossible: they pivoted–or scrambled–to embrace online and digital technologies en masse for both teaching and assessment (Brooks et al., 2020). What was achieved was beyond imagination. And, while there were glitches and hiccoughs and technical failures, it proved that online learning on a massive scale was not only possible, but achievable in a short period of time. While a British survey of academics found they were ‘bruised’ by the emergency transition and had stories of “trauma in the face of the pandemic and of profound professional and personal disruption” (Watermeyer et al., 2020), lessons from this exceptional and unprecedented period will not go to waste. It is entirely predictable that 2020

2.2 Higher Education in the Post-COVID-19 World

19

will mark the beginning of a rapid and profound transformation in how universities organise themselves and their educational offerings. One thing for certain is that, after years of vigorous and determined resistance from academic staff, universities will have gained confidence that online and hybrid models of teaching and learning are not only possible but effective, and offer viable– and, at times, maybe even better–alternatives to face-to-face lectures and seminars. Governments now need to play catch up in terms of developing policies that embrace this accelerated period of digital, technological and AI-enabled reform to instruction, content, feedback and assessment. While technology advances tend to leap ahead with unrelenting speed, governments struggle to write, approve, fund and roll out policies that can keep up with how such disruption impacts on students’ lives and how they learn. In this new age of wild unpredictability, governments must–while ensuring that the quality of the educational experience is not compromised–put in place a range of policy and regulatory measures. Governments must embrace online learning, and the unbundling and rebundling of teaching and qualifications across institutions, education sectors and even countries. It is of paramount importance that campusbased education does not become the preserve of the wealthy and socially privileged. As we all know, university is more than learning, assessments and qualifications. It is also ultimately a social experience: of interactions with fellow students and staff, of societies and sport and friendships. It is unlikely that universities will return to fullthrottle, face-to-face teaching for some time. Vulnerable students and staff, including those with health concerns, and international students, will be missing from the usual mix. There are other considerations for governments in the aftermath of COVID19. While demand for higher education will increase–as always happens in economic downturns (Long 2013)–graduate unemployment will dramatically spike in coming years. Whether governments should pick ‘winners’–by more heavily subsidising courses they think will provide better job prospects in the future–is highly contentious. The World Bank (2020) notes that government intervention will be required, in the wake of both the economic contraction and the “labour market distrust in the quality of remote learning”, to reassure workplaces that graduates of online courses have qualifications of the same quality as on-campus students. It also recommends that governments expand short course options and certification programs to provide rapid skills-orientation options for affected tertiary students, a concept further explored in detail in Chap. 3.

2.3 Policy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution Higher education and what it means to be an ‘educated person’ has changed over time, with the rate of change accelerating at ever-increasing speed in recent decades. It has gone from an elite model designed to further empower privilege, to one intended to produce a new class of well-trained professionals. In recent years, the value of

20

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

producing graduates who are imbued with the so-called ‘soft skills’–critical thinking, communication and teamwork–has been emphasised, with the shift now focusing on creativity. It is likely that it is those people with ideas, not workers or investors, who will be the scarcest resource (Brynjolfsson et al. 2014). As Min Xu et al. (2018) wrote: “The scarcest and most valuable resource in an era driven by digital technologies will be neither ordinary labor nor ordinary capital; rather it will be those people who can create new ideas and innovations.” As discussed in Chap. 1, the graduates of the 2020s must be able to face and adapt to constant change and instability. As the Spanish philosopher Daniel Innerarity (2010) said: The most highly valued form of knowledge has changed. Less importance is attached to cumulative, rules-based knowledge (that which follows a set of established rules that must simply be applied) and more to reflective knowledge with a critical spirit based on the creation of knowledge itself. It is not an empirical form of knowledge, but rather one that is produced by active learning processes, which generates learning expectations rather than rules (Innerarity, 2010).

In a world of constant volatility, lifelong learning should be a personal ambition of all citizens and a central plank to government policy. To allow for this, education must be fundamentally rethought. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to degrees must be meshed with micro-credentials and short courses that can be stacked and built into new credentials. These concepts are further explored in Chaps. 3 and 5. As discussed in Chap. 3, new approaches to teaching and learning that enable critical and creative thinking should be embraced by education institutions and validated by government policy approaches. Education should be designed so that individual learners can change paths mid-flight on their journey through work and life. As the World Economic Forum has pointed out (Doepker, 2019), the challenges presented to higher education sectors across the globe by the Fourth Industrial Revolution are vast. The WEF argues the three- or four-year degree is superfluous in many contexts and “more focused, affordable and practical alternatives should be encouraged” (Doepker, 2019). Technology, particularly the internet of things, will provide highly fluid learning experiences, just as it will have a similar impact on workplaces and jobs. The WEF also notes that rising levels of credentialism has led to high levels of underemployment in graduates and that if employers placed less emphasis on credentials, such as Bachelor and Masters degrees, job seekers could improve their skill sets in other ways including by completing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and short courses. The challenge for governments and universities is how to recognise and embed these non-credentials into formal programs. Indeed, as economist Alan Blinder pointed out in 2008–long before the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” had even been conceived–the focus of higher education is shifting from the quantity students receive to the quality (Blinder, 2008). As discussed in Chap. 1, the notion of higher education is shifting from a just-in-case model to that of just-in-time, and big data will play a fundamentally important role. As Mezied states: Data regarding student performance, behaviour, development, and interaction inside classrooms and on the online platforms of MOOCs as well as data from smart campuses would

2.3 Policy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

21

create diverse and fast-changing data. The ability of higher education institutions to integrate this information into smart data would result in intelligent decisions in regard to the delivery of customised education and personalised learning experience for students (Mezied, 2016).

2.4 Funding and Tuition Fees in the Time of COVID-19 COVID-19 has had a shocking impact on university funding. Closed borders prevent international students from entering. Tensions with China continue to rise, threatening a future pipeline of international students when, and if, the pandemic is finally over. Demographic changes in rising demand for higher education–even without a recession–will coincide with governments tightening budget belts. Peter Hurley (2020), from the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University in Melbourne, has predicted that the university sector in Australia faces financial impacts in the vicinity of AUD$19 billion over the next three years. Peak group Universities Australia (2020) put the figure at AUD$16 billion. No country is unaffected by the financial impacts of COVID-19. The burning question is: if universities have been forced to embrace technology and digital learning platforms during 2020 in unprecedented levels, will this force an enthusiastic embrace of online and hybrid teaching and pedagogies? Although Chap. 3 considers this topic in further detail from a learning and teaching viewpoint, it also raises interesting questions from a funding perspective. In particular, it raises questions of whether online courses, subjects and micro-credentials should be cheaper than traditional face-toface delivery. Should courses and institutions that don’t support research activity be funded at lower levels? In fact, should funding for research and teaching be funded in completely separate streams so that no cross-subsidisation can occur? From a student perspective, the answer to all of these questions is: probably. Students should know what their tuition fees are paying for: how much goes toward the cost of teaching delivery; how much to administration and facilities; how much to cross-subsidise other students and research. Universities have traditionally taken pains to obscure these matters. As the University of Melbourne’s Gwilym Croucher (2015) has pointed out, who pays for what is based as much on historical decisions as on the actual cost of education. In Australia, for example, the massive impact of COVID-19 on research funding as a direct consequence of the decline of the international student market exposes the reality of how student fees are used in higher education, a concept explored further in Chap. 6. While working out what each course costs to teach is no straightforward task, such a process would help governments, institutions and students understand much more clearly where the money is going. It would also, obviously, help us understand more clearly about cost differentials in the delivery of online and hybrid course delivery and whether fees should be adapted to reflect input costs more realistically. In Australia the government missed that opportunity in October 2020 by introducing a new fee structure that picks winners–STEM, nursing, teaching–but failed

22

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

to adopt a more transparent approach. It also chose to consider ‘teaching degrees’ as those taken in Faculties of Education, while overlooking the more traditional and scholarly approach, often thought to be better for teaching advanced school students, of a discipline-based degree followed by a postgraduate Education degree. There is ample evidence to suggest that students think online course delivery should be cheaper. One survey in the United States found 93 percent of students thought tuition costs for online education should be lowered (Hess, 2020). In what should be a red flag to governments and regulators, that same survey of 13,000 students found that 75 percent were unhappy with the quality of their online classes and 35 percent had considered withdrawing (Hess, 2020). One of the very real threats to higher education systems across the globe in the aftermath of COVID-19, will be governments adopting austerity measures across the board to address massive debt levels. As Canadian author Naomi Klein (2018) wrote in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, governments used crises to systematically and cynically use the public’s disorientation to push through radical pro-market measures. There is a very real risk of this happening as COVID-19 upsets all sense of normality. How our universities get remade in the wake of the pandemic–and with the radical transformation of digital disruption–will be a fundamental question all governments will need to address. Interestingly, while austerity was the most popular knee-jerk reaction from governments in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, this time even the most conservative of governments are pouring money into their economies to keep them afloat. However, the lingering aftermath of the pandemic also offers an opportunity for renewal, for aspiring to egalitarian goals that meet public needs rather than pro-market “conceits”. As Francis Eanes and Eleni Schirmer have written (2020): “The future of our universities will be shaped by the movements that rise up to fight for them.” Perhaps one potential path forward is the increased use of online learning and micro-credentialing, as discussed further in Chap. 3. This in turn would require concerted efforts to improve quality assurance of flexible learning, micro-credentials, short courses and blended delivery of academic programs. While some countries such as Singapore are well down the path of regulating such courses, others such as Australia have just started the journey. The World Bank (2020) also notes that governments will need to consider “strategic allocation of incentive funding to expanding and updating technological infrastructure for digital pedagogy, investments in learning science and for adequate training of faculty members”.

2.5 Governments, Universities and International Students Australia, more so than any other nation, has over the past few decades adopted a strategy of internationalisation with the aim of boosting institutional revenues, both reducing the cost burden on governments and enabling the funding of research activities that, in turn, improve rankings performance to attract international students. As discussed at length in Chap. 6, COVID-19 broke the prevailing business model

2.5 Governments, Universities and International Students

23

for research-intensive universities. The most impacted will be universities in those countries that have adopted internationalisation and large market-oriented university systems to ease pressure on the public purse. This includes Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. International student fees have contributed to the modernisation of campuses, building imposing and architecturally adventurous faculty buildings and student accommodation, boosting research efforts and crosssubsidising domestic students. That was all done in the belief that the flow of revenueraising international students would not be stemmed or halted any time in the foreseeable future. Before the COVID-19 pandemic hit in early 2020, Australian universities hosted 957,000 international students–including 442,200 in higher education– with a value to the economy of AUD$40.3 billion in 2019 (Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2019). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the estimated losses to university revenues range from $16-$19 billion over three years–and have already resulted in many tens of thousands of job losses both inside the sector and in the broader economy, with likely more on the horizon (Bolton, 2020). In the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Policy Institute found early in the crisis that many universities were modelling reductions of between 80 and 100 percent in international student numbers (Savage, 2020). Every university it approached expected to be impacted, and for some the potential loss to income is projected to be greater than GBP£100 million. Whether international students return when borders reopen, or whether they ever return en masse at all, is at time of writing an open question. Economies ravaged by recession and worse will reduce disposable incomes of families who would otherwise have sent their children for an overseas education. Others will be nervous about international travel and will choose, instead, a domestic education. As Croucher and Locke from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne state: the reinstatement of the international student sector: “… will depend on whether and when the government lifts the restrictions on travel into and out of the country. However, as international education has particular cultural dimensions and is not just another trade in services, socio-political factors may inhibit recovery of the market even if the government does open the borders” (Croucher & Locke, 2020).

2.6 Lifelong Learning–Second, Third and Fourth Careers If there is one mantra that has been repeated ad nauseam about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it is that the graduates of today and the future will have multiple careers over their lifetimes. As a concept further explored in Chap. 4, we agree wholeheartedly with the World Economic Forum’s assessment that: “Disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, blockchain and 3D printing are indeed transforming social, economic and political systems, often in unpredictable ways.

24

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

The technology itself is difficult to map because its growth rate could be exponential, factorial or higher. It is this unpredictability that is making impact assessments difficult. Difficult–but not impossible” (Menon, 2019). Consulting group McKinsey and Company has predicted that 800 million workers could be displaced in 42 countries, or a third of the global workforce, because of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Manyika et al. 2017). While the World Economic Forum and others point to the majority of job losses due to automation being lowskilled, repetitive jobs starting in high-wage countries, high-skilled jobs are not immune either. Accountants and lawyers are two professional classes that have been put on notice (World Economic Forum, 2018). Flowing from such large-scale workplace disruption, the logic follows that second, third and fourth careers will become the norm (World Economic Forum, 2020). Indeed, lifelong learning is a mantra that has been on high rotation for several decades now, but the lived experience of people in the digital economy will finally push it to being a reality. A major 2015 study by Head, van Hoeck and Garson undertook a crossdisciplinary content analysis of 185 research articles that examined the factors affecting adult participation in lifelong learning, including online and face-to-face modes of learning (Head et al., 2015). While it noted a proliferation of literature on lifelong learning in recent decades, it was those countries that had national policies in place, particularly in the EU, that was producing the most–and the most relevant– research. The paper makes the simple but profound statement: “In this new world order no one will ever be able to say they have “completed their education” (Head et al., 2015). And again: “This premise, however, assumes equitable access for all, which we have found from our analysis, is more of an ideal than a reality” (Head et al., 2015). The analysis took a broad view of education, including both formal and informal learning modes and embracing platforms such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. This is obviously a definition of lifelong learning that is so expansive it would be hard for any government policy to fully embrace. But it found that the majority of studies focused on mature age students engaged in face-to-face learning in formal qualifications. “Studies on participation in online learning were very much in the minority … This dearth of studies about internet-based modes of lifelong learning is a key takeaway from our analysis” (Head, et al., 2015). A radical idea is that countries, including Australia, undertake long-term, longitudinal research of mature-age online learning students engaged in both formal and informal studies. It should track their motivations, their success, their attrition rates, their engagement and their post-study outcomes. A 2015 book published by UNESCO, titled From University Lifelong Learning to Lifelong Learning Universities, noted that in Europe “despite the quality and quantity of [lifelong learning] initiatives, the results so far appear insufficient to external stakeholders and fragile to internal ones, since they are highly dependent on the leaders of each university” (Yang et al., 2015). As discussed in Chap. 1, as the Fourth Industrial Revolution plays out, the traditional human trajectory of education, work and retirement is undergoing the ructions of mass disruption. Education and training will increasingly have multiple

2.6 Lifelong Learning–Second, Third and Fourth Careers

25

touch points–with people entering and exiting throughout their entire working lives as they constantly renegotiate their work skills and career trajectories. This presents “both a need and an opportunity for universities to create new forms of provision to support alumni involved in such transitions over the long term and to offer flexible responses to the challenges they face” (Yang et al., 2015). To do this successfully, institutions will have to keep students’ needs–not their own–as central to the promise of transformation. This might include recognition of prior learning, validation and recognition of non-formal and informal learning experiences, as well as short courses and micro-credentials, and more fully integrating learning and work experiences. The acquisition of new knowledge is now possible outside traditional learning spaces, and the important questions are now about what and when to learn throughout one’s life. In this context, universities are not the only places where formal learning takes place, and they must also adapt to recognise and validate informal and nonformal learning (Yang et al., 2015). All this must be achieved against a historical context in which mature age students now make-up around 50 percent of undergraduate students and who are much more likely to study part-time and online–both of which are heavily correlated with increased risk of attrition. In parallel with that is the fact that mature-age students are also more likely to come from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds and to have not had a particularly positive experience at school. Going to university is a huge financial and time investment and a major lifedecision for mature-age students. It is an experience motivated by hope but filled with risk. The sad fact is, too many mature age students are let down by universities. A recent paper for the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology found there are strategies that can improve experiences for mature age online and part-time students (Stone & O’Shea, 2019). Creating a positive and engaging learning experience that includes integrated and embedded support, through the design and delivery of online undergraduate programs, can add another important element. If higher education institutions can bring together an understanding and appreciation of both the needs and contributions of this cohort, with appropriate educational design, delivery and support, it is likely that many more first-in-family older students will be able to stay, persist and succeed as online students (Stone & O’Shea, 2019). Experience from the United Kingdom illustrates just how sensitive to price mature age students–particularly those from poorer backgrounds–are. After fees tripled in 2012, mature age enrolments fell by 20 percent. They have never recovered (Geven, 2015). A report for the Sutton Trust by Claire Callender and John Thompson (2018) noted that the mature and part-time sector requires tailored solutions to financing and that resources be invested into lifelong learning, particularly for the less well-off. Singapore offers an interesting model. From 2016, all Singaporeans aged 25 and over were given SGD$500 in a learning account to be spent on education and training with an approved provider. In 2019, around 500,000 individuals and 14,000 enterprises took part in Skills Future programmes, an increase from the 465,000 individuals and 12,000 enterprises that benefited in 2018 (Chong, 2020).

26

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

UNESCO has also created a platform that lists laws, policies, strategies and plans on lifelong learning from its member states (UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning).

2.7 Creating a Post-School Education Ecosystem Over the past 50 years, as university systems have grown, many governments across the developed world appear to have lost sight of vocational or further education. We need to look no further than Australia and the United Kingdom. Both countries have pursued policies that preference and prize higher education over vocational and skills training. The results have often been disastrous, with governments struggling to contain the fall-out from decades of ill-conceived free-market policy experiments, cost cutting and neglect. Philip Augur, who wrote the 2019 report into post-school education in the United Kingdom, asked this deceptively simple question: “England is a nation of two halves when it comes to post-18 education. What of the 50 percent of young people who do not go to university?” (United Kingdom Department for Education 2019). Augur’s evidence of a chronic asymmetry was compelling. In 2018, in English universities, over GBP£8 billion in funding supported 1.2 million undergraduates compared to just GBP£2 billion assisting 2.2 million people in further education (Augur 2019). In Australia, the training sector’s share of education funding plummeted 30 percent in a decade (Ross, 2017). The Australian Bureau of Statistics data found that higher education spending in 2015–16 was 52 percent higher than in 2005–06 and school spending was up 30 percent–in line with demographic growth and wage inflation. Meanwhile, VET spending had fallen 4.7 percent (Ross, 2017). Augur in some ways was echoing the work of Alison Wolf, a Kings College London professor who has been talking about post-secondary education and economic outcomes for decades. She states: “Education … plays two major roles in the economy: as a creator of skills and a source of signals. The graduates who are stuck entering data or serving lattes suggest that many of those extra years in the lecture halls are indeed merely raising the qualifications bar, rather than generating economic growth via new skills” (Wolf, 2017). “The frightening decline in the United Kingdom’s productivity growth is certainly not what 50 per cent participation was supposed to deliver” (Wolf, 2017). There are vast equity implications. Those who choose vocational or further education are most often from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, with poor schooling and a lack of economic security. Augur called for “a joined-up system that works for everyone” (Carasso, 2019). Research from Australia’s Grattan Institute (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2019) shows that males with low academic achievement on leaving school earn more if they go to vocational education than higher education. Yet government policies and funding constantly preference higher education over vocational education. Worse, women who undertake vocational education do no better than people who finish their education on completing school. A KPMG report (Parker et al., 2018), called for a single tertiary education funding model that was agnostic

2.7 Creating a Post-School Education Ecosystem

27

of any division between post-secondary education. There would be great merit in allowing students to combine single subjects and micro-credentials into stackable qualifications that lead into–and out of–higher education. Also, class scheduling that allows people to attend on weekends and after hours would make the challenges of juggling work, family and study just a trifle less gruelling. Certainly, the USA’s community colleges offer a model on which to draw. They play a crucial equity role, drawing large numbers of students from low socioeconomic and racially diverse backgrounds. Yet aspirations are high. Research shows that 80 percent of community college students hope to go on to gain a four-year degree (Mintz, 2019). While most do not make it–largely due to cost–there are certainly merits to the system. Another place to look is Canada where colleges are strong, trusted public institutions that are anchors in their local communities. There are no crises, no collapse in confidence and no scandals. Their qualifications are trusted. Students are attracted to them in great numbers. They are the reason why Canada has the highest level of post-secondary education attainment in the world for the population aged 15–64 years. They are not perfect, but they are a good model, and we can learn from them. O’Banion offers other innovations that are equally applicable to other countries, including Australia. These include co-enrolment between vocational and university institutions with aligned curricula and articulation agreements that ensure students are not penalised if they move between institutions (O’Banion et al. 2019). Another innovation includes stackable credentials, for the same reasons that are outlined elsewhere in this book; and one-stop, wraparound proactive support that is available to all students. Ultimately, though, governments, schoolteachers and parents need to value vocational education as highly as we do higher education. It is a chicken and egg dilemma, but surely funding and holistic policy setting, and long-term strategic thinking, are the stepping off points.

2.8 Independent Oversight of Policy and Funding In Australia, as in other countries, there have been a few hardy souls banging the drum for years about the need for independent oversight of post-secondary education policy and funding. The former University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Professor Glyn Davis is one. Innes Willox, Chief Executive Officer of the industry peak body Australian Industry Group is another. The idea is simple: politics can often be shortsighted and self-interested. Sometimes, politicians can be alarmingly uninterested. Professor Ian Chubb AC FAA, a former Vice-Chancellor and senior executive in Australian universities for 30 years before going on to become the nation’s Chief Scientist, has said that in his three decades as an administrator he saw dozens of federal education ministers come and go, but only two who wanted the job. The consequences: short-termism, ad hoc and opportunistic policy development, high levels of disinterest and lack of advocacy to cabinet and treasury. Professor Davis puts it this way: “For some politicians, higher education is an unwelcome portfolio, filled with ungrateful vice-chancellors, protesting students, pointless trivial controversies,

28

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

and little opportunity to shine. Higher education ministers can become increasingly testy, worried their career is sinking without trace amid the quagmire of this portfolio” (Davis, 2018). He went on to point out that the churn in ministers meant that whether they were good or bad, caring or indifferent, they usually left unfinished business. “A brief stay in the ministerial office is never enough time to create a stable, workable policy framework for higher education. So, universities must never pin their hopes on transient political masters,” he wrote (Davis, 2018). “It is why I have long advocated a post-school education commission, to encourage long-term policy stability” (Davis, 2018). Willox put it like this: “There is a lack of overall policy direction and governance of the system. Consideration needs to be given to the formation of a central and independent coordinating agency to provide common approaches across the [post-secondary education] sectors and levels of government” (The Australian Industry Group, 2019). Add to that horse-trading with minority parties over important and potentially nation-changing legislation–the 2014–15 attempt to deregulate tuition fees in Australia springs to mind–and the potential for long-term disarray and negative consequences is very real. The same is true in the vocational education sector, only possibly more so, caught as it is between federal and state government funding responsibilities and differing priorities (the only common priority is cost cutting). In Australia, as elsewhere, the vocational sector has “been bedevilled by competing jurisdiction control, political ideology, chronic under-funding, piecemeal reforms, rampant rorting by a small number of corporate private providers, and a disappointing and surprisingly high level of policy confusion,” according to Ruth Schubert and Leo Goedegebuure (2018), from the University of Melbourne. The solution seems obvious but unrealistic given the lack of political will. Mature, comprehensive and low-risk providers–in essence the public providers called TAFE– should be given “independence from government control, and operational autonomy so they can lead the change we need” (Schubert and Goedegebuure 2018). Longterm, equitable funding is essential, so long as it is “based on an agreed framework with clear and measurable performance outcomes” (Schubert and Goedegebuure 2018). The KPMG report, Reimagining Tertiary Education (Parker et al.2018), also recommended an independent tertiary education pricing authority “to determine the appropriate price of the teaching of various disciplines at different tertiary education levels and set the maximum amount of student contributions that can be levied”. At the time of writing, Australia had just headed down the opposite path with the government changing legislation to allow it to re-engineer government and student contributions across all disciplines, including a 113 percent increase in student contributions for studying humanities, which will have the perverse outcome of making it difficult for future teachers to undertake degree level studies in the disciplines they will teach to senior students. At the same time, all education systems need government policies to be informed by evidence. Sadly, this is not always the case. Big data can be used to understand why individuals make the choices they do, why they elect to study the courses they do, and why they drop out. It would ensure scarce taxpayer dollars get the biggest bang for their buck. Robust accountability would seem to be the most logical and cost-effective way to get around this chaos. And

2.8 Independent Oversight of Policy and Funding

29

the only people with the authority and legitimacy to do that do not sit in political positions–or a politically compromised bureaucracy.

References Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2019). End of Year Summary of International Student Data 2019. 2019. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// internationaleducation.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Documents/MONTHLY% 20SUMMARIES/2019/December%202019%20End%20of%20year%20summary.pdf Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills And Employment, (2020). The ESOS legislative framework. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://internationaleducation.gov. au/Regulatory-Information/Education-Services-for-Overseas-Students-ESOS-Legislative-Fra mework/ESOS-Regulations/Pages/default.aspx Blinder, A. S. (2008). Education for the third industrial revolution, CEPS working paper no. 163. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/163blinder. pdf Bolton, R. (2020). Second wave of university job cuts coming next year. Australian Financial Review. 17 September. Brooks, C. D., Grajetk, S., & Lang, L. (2020). Institutional readiness to adopt fully remote learning. EDUCAUSE Review. 9 April. Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A., & Spence, M. (2014). New world order: Labor, capital, and ideas in the power law economy. Foreign Affairs. July/August 2014. Calendar, C., Thompson, J. (2018). The lost part-timers: The decline of part-time undergraduate higher education in England. The Sutton Trust. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://dera. ioe.ac.uk/31281/1/The-Lost-Part-Timers-Final.pdf Carasso, H. (2019). The augar review: What it could mean for students and universities. The Conversation. 31 May. Chong, C. (2020). More Singaporeans, companies using skillsfuture for training: SSG. The Straits Times. 7 February. Croucher, G. (2015). Funding higher education: time for a more transparent system?. The Conversation. 18 November. Croucher, G., Locke, W. (2020). A post-coronavirus pandemic world: Some possible trends and their implications for Australian higher education.Melbourne CSHE discussion paper. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/ 3371941/a-post-coronavirus-world-for-higher-education_final.pdf Davis, G. (2018). Confessions of a uni vice-chancellor, Australian Financial Review. 29 August. Derwin, J. (2020). This is how many jobs each Australian university has cut–or plans to–in 2020. Business Insider. 18 September. Doepker, M. (2019). 5 Ways students can graduate fully qualified for the fourth industrial revolution, World Economic Forum, 16 January. Esaki-Smith, A. (2020). How universities are cleaning, crowdfunding and buying a mile’s worth of plexiglas to reopen campuses, Forbes. Geven, K. (2015). How did the latest increase in fees in England affect student enrolment and inequality?, In A. Curaj, L. Matei, , R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: between critical reflections and future policies, New York: Springer. Head, A. J., Van Hoeck, M., Garson, D. S. (2015). Lifelong learning in the digital age: A content analysis on recent research on participation. First Monday, 20(2). Hess, A. (2020). More than 93% of U.S. college students say tuition should be lowered if classes are online. CNBC. 27 July.

30

2 Higher Education Policy in Times of Disruption

Hubler, S., Hartocollis, A. (2020). How colleges became the new covid hot spots. The New York Times. 11 September. Hurley, P. (2020). Australian universities could lose $19 billion in the next 3 years. Victoria University, 17 April 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.vu.edu.au/mitchell-instit ute/tertiary-education/australian-universities-could-lose-19-billion-in-the-next-3-years Innerarity, D. (2010). Uncertainty and creativity: Educating for the knowledge of society (11 May 2020). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www.debats.cat/en/debates/uncertainty-andcreativity-educating-knowledge-society Klein, N. (2018). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador. Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common good. University of Melbourne Press. Menon, J. (2019). Why the fourth industrial revolution could spell more jobs–not fewer. World Economic Forum, 17 September. Mezied, A. A. (2016). What role will education play in the fourth industrial revolution? World Economic Forum, 22 January. Norton, A., Cherastidtham, I. (2019). Risks and rewards: When is vocational education a good alternative to higher education?. Grattan Institute report no. 2019–06. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/report/risks-and-rewards-when-is-vocational-education-agood-alternative-to-higher-education/ O’Banion, T. (Eds.). (2019). 13 Ideas that are transforming the community college world. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge Manyika, J., Lund, S., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Batra, P., Ko, R., & Sanghvi, S. (2017). Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. McKinsey Global Institute. 28 November 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gainedwhat-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages Mintz, S. (2019). Community colleges and the future of higher education. Inside Higher Ed, 9 March. Moodie, G. (2020). Why is the Australian government letting universities suffer?. The Conversation, 19 May. Parker, S., Dempster, A., & Warburton, M. (2018). Reimagining tertiary education: From binary system to ecosystem. KPMG. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://home.kpmg/content/ dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/reimagining-tertiary-education-executive-summary.pdf Ross, J. (2017). ‘Poor cousin’ VET ‘s funding keeps falling. The Australian, 12 December. Savage, M. (2020). Universities brace for huge loses as foreign students drop out. The Guardian, 12 April. Schubert, R., Geodegeburre, L. (2018). Skills education needs action, not more talk, University of Melbourne. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/skillseducation-needs-action-not-more-talk Stone, C., O’Shea, S. (2019). Older, online and first: Recommendations for retention and success. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,35(1). Retrieved November 15, 2020. The Australian Industry Group. (2019). Realising potential: Solving Australia’s tertiary education challenge. Ai Group. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.aigroup.com.au/policyand-research/mediacentre/releases/realising-potential-1Feb/ UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning. (2020). Collection of Lifelong Learning Policies and Strategies. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://uil.unesco.org/lifelong-learning/lifelonglearning-policies United Kingdom. Department for Education. (2019). Post-18 review of education and funding: independent panel report. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/post-18-review-of-education-and-funding-independent-panel-report United Kingdom Government, (2020). Government support package for higher education providers and students. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/govern ment-support-package-for-universities-and-students

References

31

Universities Australia. (2020). Covid-19 to cost universities $16 billion by 2023 [Press release]. 3 June 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/mediaitem/covid-19-to-cost-universities-16-billion-by-2023/ Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2020). Covid-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education. 4 June. Wolf, A. (2017). Degrees of failure: Why it’s time to reconsider how we run our universities. Prospect Magazine. 14 July. World Bank. (2020). The Covid-19 crisis response: Supporting tertiary education for continuity, adaption and innovation. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/ 621991586463915490/WB-Tertiary-Ed-and-Covid-19-Crisis-for-public-use-April-9.pdf World Economic Forum. (2018).The Future of Jobs Report 2018. World Economic Forum. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf World Economic Forum. (2020).Jobs of tomorrow: Mapping opportunity in the new economy. World Economic Forum. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_Jobs_of_Tomorrow_2020.pdf Xu, M., David, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Financial Research, 9(2). Yang, J., Schneller, C., & Roche, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning. UNESCO Institute For Lifelong Learning, Hamburg. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://tinyurl.com/UNESCO-0000233592

Chapter 3

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

Abstract This chapter focuses on the changes that should be made relating to learning and teaching in higher education to respond to a time of disruption. Keywords Higher Education Learning · Higher Education Teaching · Lectures · Blended Learning · Online Learning · Assessment · Lifelong Learning · Microcredentials · Digital Skills · Digital Literacy · Social Learning · Students as Customers · Technology

3.1 A Focus on Student Learning The purpose of this chapter is to propose changes to learning and teaching in higher education to respond to a time of disruption. It is imperative that this change occurs because learning and teaching is a fundamental purpose of higher education, as explained in Chap. 1. It is sometimes easy, with so much distraction in the sector, to become wrapped up in marketisation, learning technologies, new business models, politics and lots of other things. The following radical suggestions might be considered by some simply a return to some of the fundamentals of learning and teaching. That this in itself is a radical idea is an interesting, and concerning, observation. To strip the process of teaching and learning back to its absolute basics, one cannot really argue with the simple statement of John Biggs: “learning is what the learner does” (Biggs, 1999). This concept refers to teaching as more than simply a content delivery transmission or broadcast, but instead focuses on whether learners actually learn, and the sorts of teaching and learning activities that are best chosen to achieve this outcome. As Biggs himself observes, this is indeed “radically different from that which … prevails in most institutions” (Biggs, 1999). With wonderful exceptions, overall, higher education struggles with the concept of good teaching. This is hardly surprising given there is usually no qualification required for higher education appointment other than a discipline-specific (researchbased) PhD. Excellent teaching is more than simply having a PhD. Excellent teaching is, however, born of deep, knowledgeable subject matter expertise. By far the most inspirational teachers are those that have a remarkable command of their field and are also so enthusiastic about the knowledge they have to share that they really can © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_3

33

34

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

express their love of their area of expertise in a way that makes every student listening burst too with passion. This topic also raises the importance of considering the connection points between learning and teaching, research and service or community engagement. The university cannot achieve its goals if these three components are considered distinct activities and are pursued as independent from one another. When one considers that the purpose of higher education is both the production and dissemination of knowledge, including the formation and cultivation of the intellectual character of students, all of the activities of a university must be directed towards achieving these outcomes. Within the university, there must be a consistent, coherent vision and culture, across the leadership and within all staff. For this reason, a value proposition for the university must be collaboratively developed. Second, excellent teaching should not be confused with “pleasing students for a student evaluation score”. This is in quotation marks as it is a phrase often used in higher education when good teachers receive high evaluation scores for teaching. Evaluation scores in teaching and learning are undoubtedly flawed. Having said that though, students generally do like excellent teaching and tell us exactly what makes an excellent teacher. Excellent teachers make themselves clear. They are excellent communicators. They set learning goals that are clear and assessment that will test understanding. They encourage creativity and appreciate diverse and wide opinion. They are explicit as to expectation and achievement, have high rates of student retention and show a measurable advantage in what students actually understand and remember about the material they are studying (Dori et al. 2007). Excellent teachers set the conditions for excellent learning. Third, excellent teaching should not be confused with “delivering content”. Unfortunately, higher education has taken on the title of ‘Lecturer’, implying that the function is to stand at a lectern and lecture. If this were true, then the rhetoric about robots taking academic jobs would be a genuine problem. An excellent teacher deeply cares about who is there, whether in person or online. After all, if no one is there, how do you fulfil your role as an educator to influence, motivate and inspire students to learn? Excellent teachers have respect and support for the development of students as individuals. An excellent teacher deeply cares about student learning and is at the very least engaged with the scholarship of teaching and learning. This leads us to a frank statement: lectures are, on the whole, boring (Mann & Robinson, 2009). Even in history, boring lectures seem to always have existed. This is one of the only conclusions you can draw from viewing a painting by Laurentius de Voltolina capturing a fourteenth century medieval lecture at the University of Bologna. Some students appear disengaged. Others chatting. A couple are asleep. Although, to be fair, a few attentive students up the front are attentively listening. It seems not much has changed even centuries later. In William Hogarth’s engraving from 1736, entitled, Scholars at a Lecture, the scholar in the front row is asleep, and the scholar on the right-hand side in the midst of a yawn. One study has found that students in traditional “stand-and-deliver” lectures in science, engineering and mathematics are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students

3.1 A Focus on Student Learning

35

in classes with active learning methodology (Freeman et al. 2014). This is not particularly surprising research in that of course one-way communication in the form of a monologue is less likely to have an impact on learning than an active, questioning method. Laurillard refers to the transmission function of a lecture, with a noninteractive audience, being “profoundly defective, inefficient and outmoded” (Laurillard, 2002). Some, however, still defend the lecture as an interpretive, hermeneutic exercise. Friesen concludes, for example, “instead of being replaced or rendered obsolete, the lecture with its oral roots is complemented, augmented and reconfigured through changes in textual technologies” (Friesen, 2014). In today’s modern universities, prior to the fully online university world of COVID-19, anecdotally, it was well known that attendance at a face-to-face university lecture would generally range from 15–40%, unless there was a compulsion to attend due to either a visa or attendance requirement. According to one study, student attendance when lectures are recorded is significantly lower; students use lecture recordings during term time for learning, and for assessment preparation and exam revision (Morris et al. 2019). Declining lecture attendance has been an ongoing feature of higher education for at least the last two decades (Massingham & Herrington, 2006). In part this has been blamed on the more recent phenomenon (or requirement, in some institutions) of lecture recording (or “lecture capture”) (McKie, 2019). This is a system, usually embedded in most lecture theatres, that records the live lecture and streams it to a learning management system, for students to listen to whenever they want, and how many times they would like to. Although some would argue this reduces lecture attendance (Morris et al. 2019), other research finds that the provision of recorded lectures to students prior to scheduled classes does not automatically lead to lecture absenteeism (Daniel 2016). If you’ve never witnessed a student consuming a lecture recording, it is well worth the time. The word ‘consume’ is deliberately chosen as students literally listen to a lecture on 1.5 × , 2 × or more speed, so that the lecturer’s voice becomes faster and somewhat higher. Why listen at all? You might ask? Students value lecture recordings to revise and prepare for assessments (Daniel 2016). Basically, some students use lecture recordings for learning (Morris et al. 2019). Of course, there are exceptions in the case of exceptional and engaging lecturers who embrace active learning as part of their approach, but by and large, quite simply, the lecture should be dead. Teaching is a conversation. You cannot stand up at the lectern and teach alone. Learning is not just about what the teacher says or does. Biggs again, this time with Tang, coins the phrase “learner-centered teaching” (Biggs & Tang, 2007). Learning is also what the learner does. In well-designed learning, this is best achieved by purposefully designing learning. This includes, for example, solving real life problems: framing problems where practical skills are used in context and interactive experiences, where learners apply knowledge incorporating thinking and performing aspects of learning. Well-designed learning can include learners co-designing their learning pathway, where learners have the ability to negotiate their learning pathway and assessment based on their needs and motivations. Learning should also recognise

36

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

past experience where existing knowledge is used as the basis of constructing new knowledge. It is well documented that good learning design comes down to learner, teacher and content interactions. This means that in learning design, it is critical to consider first, how learners interact with content, resources, research and evidence. Questions that an excellent teacher will ask is: how should learners engage with that learning content–individually, through self-study? By listening to a podcast, lecture or video? Reviewing texts? Applying readings? Case studies? A second consideration is how learners will engage with the teacher. Will it be through learning activities and assessments, discussions in class or online? Debates or role play, investigations, field work? The third consideration is how learners will engage with each other. Will it be in collaboration and group work? Discussion forums? Peer review? Problem-based learning? Project work online or in person? The first suggestion of this chapter, therefore, is simple: focus on what the student does and focus on student learning.

3.2 Digital Skills are just as Important as Discipline Knowledge It is, without question, absolutely imperative for a young person today to understand technology and digital skills. This is just as important as discipline knowledge. Globally, industries and the way people work are being disrupted through innovation, technology and new business models. There are economic shifts that are redistributing power, wealth, competition and opportunity around the globe (PwC, 2014). It is the case that disruptive innovations, radical thinking, new business models and resource scarcity are impacting every sector (PwC, 2014). For all learners today, globalisation and connectedness are the new norm. In this new social- and mobile-enabled landscape, we are in a constant state of cloud-fuelled collaboration and communication. As stated by one futurist, “Whether born-digital millennials or reinvented baby boomers, we are now all ‘omnichannel’ consumers who consider anytime, anywhere, any device connectivity the norm” (Equinix, 2015). For businesses too, technology is completely changing the future of enterprise, with new ways to work. Quite simply, technologies are reinventing the global economy, and to be a part of it, there is a need for all learners to be continuous learners of digital skills. There are multiple, often conflicting lists as to the exact digital skills students might need. At the most basic level, it is generally accepted that everyone needs to feel comfortable working with technology (Accenture, 2016). UNESCO describes these as “basic functional digital skills” and defines them as “accessing and engaging with digital technologies–skills essential to access and begin to use digital technology; understanding basic ICT concepts, adjusting settings, managing files, psychomotor skills such as manual dexterity to use keypads and touch screen technologies” (UNESCO, 2017). That is, being able to use a mobile phone or tablet. The response

3.2 Digital Skills are just as Important as Discipline Knowledge

37

of individuals to COVID-19 by shifting to online work has really highlighted where these particular skills need refinement. The phrase of COVID-19 is almost certainly “You’re on Mute” in response to unwittingly leaving the mute button on whilst speaking on videoconference. Many a businessperson has been seen badly fumbling with trying to operate an online conferencing system when suddenly thrust into the imperative of having to use one, whilst others seamlessly transferred to online without barely a blink. The basics of digital literacy, namely accessing and engaging with digital technologies, is just the starting point. There are also intermediate digital skills such as information and data literacies, digital content creation and an understanding of digital rights (UNESCO, 2017). Beyond intermediate are higher level digital skills that form the basis of specialist ICT professions and include computational thinking, programming skills and data analytics. These are called “hard digital skills” and extend to skills around whole new fields in business such as cybersecurity and cloud computing (Capgemini & LinkedIn, 2017). If you go even further with digital skills, you can break down the particular skills needed by different industries. In a report by Deloitte, “What Key Competencies are Required in the Digital Age”, examples include the specific skills needed for business and management, engineering, manufacturing, arts and humanities and health services (Deloitte, 2017). As AlphaBet Strategy X Economics a remarked in their Future Skills Report, “there is no blanket formula to predict which specific skills Australia’s workforce will need to thrive in a time of increasing investment in artificial intelligence and robotics. Individual skill requirements will continue to vary significantly across occupations” (AlphaBeta Strategy X Economics 2019). EDUCAUSE would instead assert that it is digital fluency that is important. According to EDUCAUSE, “digital fluency refers to the ability to leverage digital tools and platforms to communicate critically, design creatively, make informed decisions, and solve wicked problems while anticipating new ones” (EDUCAUSE 2019). Digital fluency is, practically speaking, one step ahead of digital literacy; there is a deep understanding of the digital environment, enabling co-creation of content and the ability to adapt to new contexts (EDUCAUSE 2019). Digital fluency prepares students to solve problems. Elements of digital fluency includes curiosity fluency, communication fluency, creation fluency, data fluency and innovation fluency (EDUCAUSE 2019). That’s a lot of fluencies, but overall, the concept is trying to communicate a concept beyond just being literate with digital materials, but the ability to create something new with digital tools. So how can digital literacy, or–if you are bold–digital fluency, be included in the curriculum? A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) explains why “advanced digital skills, like coding and data visualisation, attract a wage premium (but may become redundant quickly)” (Australian Government AIHW 2019). AIHW says job adverts mentioning Tableau (data visual software) increased 19 times between 2012 and 2018 but Adobe Photoshop dropped from 10th to 31st” (Australian Government AIHW 2019). There is a message for education and training providers: “while the latest and most advanced technical skills represent a lucrative niche in the labour market, basic digital literacy will be valuable for all

38

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

workers and job seekers” (Australian Government AIHW 2019). It is a challenge for current and future workers is to be flexible and able to acquire new skills as tasks within jobs change (Australian Government AIHW 2019); and “it is likely that businesses will increasingly look at prospective employees’ skill sets rather than specific occupation titles; and workers will need to be able to work across and outside traditional job descriptions” (Australian Government AIHW 2019). Apparently, advocates of a general education were right all along: it is learning how to think, rather than the skill-set of the hour, that will generate jobs. Learning to learn is clearly a critical skill. It does not really matter the exact digital skills required by learners, because there is no doubt that these lists will change over time. What is important, however, is that underpinning many digital skills is a basic understanding of science, technology, engineering and maths, or STEM. Without a foundation in STEM, a young person today, whether in school or university, may have more limited career options in the future. STEM in the early years also develops other skills such as critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving skills. Some would go as far as to say it is the “passport of the future” (Reeson et al. 2016). This chapter proposes that universities must embed digital skills in the curriculum. There must be a radical rethink of education where digital literacies are treated as just as important as discipline knowledge.

3.3 Blended and Online Learning are Both Important in Higher Education The requirement of fully online learning and teaching, however, also clearly highlighted when face-to-face learning is genuinely needed in higher education. Before going further, there is no question that wonderful learning interactions take place between teachers, content and learners in fully online learning environments. Online learning is increasing in popularity–one in five of all University learners in Australia are online learners, for example (Australian Government uCube 2020). Well, at least that was the case prior to COVID-19. The online learning population is predominately female, and most online learning is postgraduate learning (Australian Government uCube 2020). Online learners choose online learning for a number of reasons, particularly access, convenience and flexibility (Harris and Martin 2012). This includes those who are in full time employment, need accessibility and flexibility, have individual responsibilities, are physically distant or are seeking international prestige (Ilgaz and Gulbahar, 2017). Overwhelmingly though, online learners choose online learning because it suits family and work commitments. That is, they would like to learn, but do not have the time or ability or both to attend a university campus in person. Just like any other mode of learning, online learning can be excellent, absolutely terrible or somewhere in the middle.

3.3 Blended and Online Learning are Both Important in …

39

Online learning sometimes gets a bad rap. It is often wrapped up in a lot of misinformation. Online learning is seen as the poor second cousin of ‘the lecture’ and an even poorer cousin of ‘face-to-face learning’. A romantic image of the lecture sees a small cluster of students sitting at the feet of an expert, passionately hanging on to every word. The image of a tutorial is that of Oxbridge-style; students passionately arguing a point with an academic. In most higher education institutions, this image is far from the reality–even before COVID-19. As discussed above, prior to COVID, on university campuses lectures were poorly attended (unless there was a compulsion to attend through assessment or visa requirements). As also discussed later, even then, the efficacy of a lecture for learning is highly debatable given the evidence on the benefits of active learning (Prince, 2003). At its worst, online learning can be truly horrendous. That may include blocks of content delivered as PDF documents, without either interaction with a teacher or another learner. The unlucky ones may get a quiz or exam at the conclusion. Although there is a useful place for content curation, in itself it will not create engaging conditions of learning. Face-to-face learning can also be beyond dreadful for student learning. One study by Rusted and Coltheart showed that just 30 min after finishing a lesson, students remembered only 58% of the material taught–and retained only 35% of the material seven days later (Velayo, 1993). At its best, however, online learning can be truly engaging. Students can learn online–and learn well. It is possible that many who did not choose this mode of learning before COVID-19 may now prefer fully online learning environments. At its best, online learning incorporates collaborative and social learning online–a community of academic tutors, industry mentors, student success staff, as well as experiential learning–courses designed with industry skills in mind and application of skills in the workplace. Online learning also has the potential to create micro-credentials and shorter forms of learning more suited to the future of work than traditional higher education courses. It is clearly time to move on from the scepticism about the quality and value of online education and not consider it as inevitably inferior to face-to-face education. There is no doubt that learning can occur in an online learning environment, provided it is designed well and with learning in mind. With COVID-19 and the trend towards online learning, perhaps the future holds more acceptance of the benefits of online learning, and perhaps higher education institutions will get better at it as time goes on. Perhaps the popularity of online learning may even overtake the traditional campus-based approaches to learning in the future. Naturally, a discussion of the role of face-to-face and online learning raises a consideration of blended learning. Blended learning refers to systematic combination of co-present (face-to-face) interactions and technologically mediated interactions between students, teachers and learning resources (Bluic and Ellis 2007). Blended learning is a co-dependency between modes and scaffolding across activities rendering the design an effective blend to support active learning (Glazer, 2012). The emphasis of blended learning is on designing active learning, organised around modes of student engagement, that is, learner-content interaction, learner-teacher interaction and learner-learner interaction, the magical trifecta referred to above (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

40

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

If you think about face-to-face and blended learning, however, when learners may benefit from coming together with teachers or other learners includes what might be called the ‘campus experience’. This includes all the informal learning that happens through ad hoc social interactions. In-person learning is different to online learning, particularly when the teacher uses active facilitation or interaction instead of seminars or passive lectures. Some learning activities are difficult to replicate online. Labs, scientific experience and practical-placed learning are examples. Overall, the components of learning that should be offered in person (in the absence of a global pandemic) depend on the mode of instruction (active versus passive learning), and the characteristics of the students enrolled–gender, age, learning style and academic competence (Stern 2004). Quite simply, social learning matters. Social learning is a modern-day buzzword. It is not a new way of learning but harnesses some of humankind’s most basic instincts–the need for social engagement and to learn from each other. Social learning is increasingly being adopted in both the corporate world and in formal learning environments, such as universities, which incorporate social technologies such as blogs, wikis, online forums, video and so on into the learning experience. Social learning is thought to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. Social learning is done on a just-in-time basis. Whether it is by using discussion forums, searching wikis, or simply by tapping the shoulder of the person next to them, social learners leverage the expertise around them on an on-demand basis to get exactly the information they need at the point that they need it. In turn, the learner can then quickly apply that information to complete a task or achieve a goal (Powell, 2020). Instead of committing large slabs of time to formal classes, students “only spend enough time to learn exactly what they need, with minimal interruption to their daily workflow” (Powell, 2020). Another upside is that social learning is thought to nurture interpersonal collaboration. “Social learning tools enable knowledge to be shared across an organisation easily and quickly. Although text-based channels such as blogs, wikis and discussion boards are commonly used, video is fast becoming the preferred method for sharing information. With as little as a laptop and webcam, employees can record problems, share best practices, and capture insights—then share them company-wide with just a click of a button” (Powell, 2020). Overall, intended learning objectives should dictate which learning environment is best. The decision to embed technology into learning should be made during the design phase of learning to avoid ‘bolt-on’ solutions that are not fit-for purpose and deterministic of the learning experience without the support of pedagogical principles. As a third radical suggestion, this chapter proposes embracing both online and blended learning, recognising that each has an audience and a place.

3.4 Students are not Customers

41

3.4 Students are not Customers It is often said that we are in “the age of the customer”. Customers, empowered with access to real-time information, anytime and anywhere, are becoming ever more demanding. Businesses are bending over backwards to accommodate every whim of the always-right customer. It is a mindset of servitude to a customer, with more voice and power than ever before. There is a whole new field of expertise in customer experience (CX), requiring the cultivation of customer empathy and pushing insights using data analytics to a height never seen before. In terms of universities, students are often analogised to customers. In the eyes of the law, universities do have consumer-like responsibilities to students. In Australia, for example, some argue that the delivery of education constitutes ‘trade or commerce’, and students should therefore fall under Australian Consumer Law (ACL) (Anderson & Madden, 2017). With the deregulation of the higher education industry and the development of a ‘competitive market’ (MinterEllison, 2016)–universities competing with one another to attract the best and brightest applicants–such provisions have become arguably more necessary than ever, as students must be protected by some mechanism from misleading or deceptive conduct. In the United Kingdom in 2013, one graduate successfully sued her university over the quality of her degree, claiming that they had engaged in false advertising and had provided a sub-standard educational experience (Busby, 2019). The framing of the student as consumer, at least legally, might prevent institutions from ‘focus[ing] on their own commercial interests’ to the detriment of the quality of service provided (Busby, 2019). This case also highlights, however, the ambiguous line dividing educational functions from operations conducted ‘in trade or commerce’, as universities do not have complete control over the quality of each student’s experience. Customer satisfaction is also a synonym for quality, defined by both meeting and exceeding customer expectations (Sirvanci, 1996). Indeed, most measures of university quality are based on student perceptions of their learning experience, legitimising the view that quality in higher education is tightly linked to satisfaction and experience. In modern higher education environments, where students pay significant tuition fees, and expectations are high for graduate salaries and employment, the term ‘customer’ gains further weight. Indeed, there are both direct and indirect costs of undertaking a degree, including travel, opportunity cost and potential loss of earnings, as well as indirect costs such as loss of reputation or confidence from a bad experience (Eagle & Brennan, 2007). Acknowledging that these arguments exist, the following radical idea is truly radical. Treat students as students, not as customers. Why? Treating students as customers undermines the educator/student relationship (Eagle & Brennan, 2007). The transaction by which the student pays fees does not equate to an exchange of money for a product or service (degree, certificate) as universities are entrusted with only providing certification to students who meet particular standards determined by student assessment to that standard

42

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

(Eagle & Brennan, 2007). Students are not purchasing a qualification. Adopting a consumerist perspective may create the expectation of good grades, irrespective of the amount of effort invested or quality of the work, and place pressure on institutions to give students what they have paid for (Clayson and Haley 2005). The particular relationship between teacher and student also changes the nature of the relationship from customer and vendor. This relationship is one that can have an impact on student progress, course satisfaction, retention, learning approaches and achievement (Haganaeur and Volet 2014). The depth and importance of this relationship goes far beyond the typical customer and vendor transaction. Students should demand excellence. They should have a high-quality education and level of service from the moment they engage with the institution, right through the time in which they are a student, and beyond as alumni and continuing lifelong education. There should be confidence and trust in the institution they have chosen. Universities in turn must see themselves as being privileged in accepting students, live up to the promises made and do everything they can to support the student with their learning objectives. An institution’s identity in terms of the learning promise made to students should be constantly interrogated and affirmed and driven through the culture, choice of technology, use of data, design of organisational structure and ultimately strategy of the University. A bold institution may even embrace studentcentred learning based on learner-centricity theories. This means that some parts of the learner-institution relationship are a negotiated outcome of active learners collaborating with their university on their learning outcomes. This approach represents a new, informed and proactive partnership with students and their learning journey. Students must play an active role in their own learning. They are supported in partnership by those entrusted with the role of teaching, underpinned by academic freedom and professional standards. This also means that the student is not always right. A student is not entitled to a high distinction, or indeed a degree, without having earned it. Students, like customers, do have the right to demand excellence. They should be accorded a high-quality experience from the moment they start to engage with the learning to the moment they leave (hopefully too, they remain as lifelong alumni and learners). This means, fundamentally, that the university has a responsibility to set the conditions for learning engagement–even though the “learning” bit is up to the students themselves. The fourth radical suggestion of this chapter is that when it comes to learning, to treat students as students, not customers. When it comes to learning, the customer is not always right.

3.5 Assessment is the Way to Measure Student Learning If a university’s responsibility is to set the conditions for learning, then a significant part of that must be assessing whether learners have met the standard required. For most of the history of higher education, most of that assessment has taken a single form: the exam. Here we will discuss the importance of assessment in higher

3.5 Assessment is the Way to Measure Student Learning

43

education, how to assess, why we assess and all of the good and bad practices relating to higher education assessment. Examinations were first introduced into Western higher education in the eighteenth century, modelled after the Chinese national exams through which members of the governing body were selected. Despite 2000 years of pedagogical development, modern tests are shockingly similar to ancient ones, “[taking] place within huge walled enclosures, inside of which were thousands of small brick cells laid out in straight rows like the houses of a town. Each cell contained a bench and a table and housed a nervous candidate” (Bodde, 2004). We may have dispensed with the brick cells, but many have argued that the broader structure of examination is not suited for modern assessment. The argument against exams is strong. There is little, if any, correlation between an exam environment and any circumstance that exists in the real world. Exams promote a “cram and forget” approach to learning. But there are much, much better forms of assessment. Some suggest that coursework spread throughout the year should be the measure of student success (Wong and Murchie, 2010). Others advocate for increased focus on professionally-oriented, real-world problem solving (Weimer, 2016)–so-called ‘authentic assessment’ (Mueller, 2018). This might include a simulation, role play, assessment in a workplace setting, performance of a skill or completion of a realworld task. Importantly, authentic assessment provides evidence that a learner has met learning objectives. These two approaches capture many of the shortcomings of traditional examination. By definition, exams can only ever present a small snapshot of a student’s academic performance, one that can be marred by nerves, illness or lack of sleep. In one study, over 80% of the students studying for a pharmacy exam obtained less than 7 h of sleep prior to an exam (Zeek et al., 2015)–likely a consequence of attempting to revise as much information as possible. Widespread behaviours such as self-imposed sleep deprivation, all-nighters (Maitre, 2006), drug taking and exam stress (Oaten and Chen, 2005) not only undermine the accuracy of exams in judging student performance, but also force learners to sacrifice their mental and physical health in pursuit of some arbitrarily defined measure of ‘excellence’. Examinations (particularly if they are closed-book) also cultivate what some may consider to be an artificial, irrelevant form of expertise (Deneen, 2020). Exams are fundamentally about testing one’s ability to recall, synthesise and transcribe knowledge within a punishingly short time period–a skill set not often required within the workforce. Alternatives such as work-integrated learning (WIL) seek to represent more closely the environments and tasks that students will be faced with after leaving university (Bosco & Ferns, 2014). Research has demonstrated that experiential learning tools such as WIL and project-based learning can enhance student learning and encourage far transfer: the ability to apply information learnt in one context to others (Bosco & Ferns, 2014; Taguma et al. 2018). Proponents of exams often claim that they are hard or impossible to cheat on (Van Bergen & Lane, 2014). While it is true that essays and other, less-invigilated forms

44

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

of assessment can be cheated on more easily, it is also extremely difficult to prevent cheating on exams. Fundamentally, cheating undermines the purpose of education and is a deception to both the individual student and to society, as a particular credential or qualification was not genuinely gained. Dishonesty of one student also creates unfairness to honest students. While it is more difficult to cheat on exams than on essays and other assignments, completely preventing it is not easy. Cheating of all types is common in higher education. The International Center for Academic Integrity, using data from surveys conducted between 2002 and 2015, found that 68% of undergraduate students admitted to cheating, as did 43% of graduate students (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2020). In high schools, 95% of students admitted to cheating in some way. Contract cheating, wherein students have a third-party (typically a tutor, family member or other proxy) complete assignments for them, is also widespread within universities. Scandals have been reported in the United Kingdom (Yorke, 2017), the United States (Stockman et al. 2019), and Australia (McNeilage and Visentin, 2014). In Australia, in September 2020, a new law was passed to criminalise contract cheating. The amendment to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 makes it a criminal offence to provide or advertise an academic cheating service on a commercial basis (Parliament House 2019). Often, approaches to preventing cheating involve imposing ever more draconian restrictions upon students: separating them (Cossar, 2014), ensuring that proctors never leave the students alone (Illinois CITL 2020) and using webcams to assess student behaviour during exams (Barthel, 2016). These methods all have their place in ensuring the fairness of traditional exams, but more broadly, they highlight issues with the forms of assessment. Despite the increased difficulty of invigilation, alternatives such as authentic assessment might potentially reduce plagiarism and cheating. When students perform a real-world task as evidence of their learning, it is harder to cheat because each assessment piece requires original thought. When coursework is spread throughout the year, much of the test anxiety associated with exams disappears, removing one significant incentive to cheat. Of course, these alternatives are not a perfect solution. All assessments must be designed in a way that minimises plagiarism, and even so some forms of dishonesty such as contract cheating can be near impossible to detect. The most obvious is what is known as authentic assessment. This term refers to using assessment for students to use and apply their knowledge and skills in real-life settings. Rather than being supervised in an airless room for several hours, learners engage in engaging, meaningful assessment tasks. Importantly, authentic assessment provides evidence that a learner has met learning objectives. Authentic assessment design can also reduce or eliminate plagiarism and cheating. When students perform a real-world, authentic task as evidence of their learning, it is harder to cheat because each assessment piece requires original thought. It is not a complete panacea though, and a series of strategies are required in assessment to reduce and eliminate plagiarism and cheating.

3.5 Assessment is the Way to Measure Student Learning

45

On one side, then, is the exam–a meaningless recall of facts in an unrealistic environment that has no specific application to the real world. It dials up stress, pressure, nerves, frustration and inequity. On the other side is authentic assessment– contextualised learning, applied to real-life environments to assess student learning outcomes. If you think about it, the answer is rather simple. The fifth radical suggestion in this chapter, therefore, is that assessment should be the way to measure student learning. Authentic assessment as contextualised learning, with less emphasis on exams, is an obvious solution.

3.6 In Learning, Life Experience Should Have Value All university educators have experienced students who seem disengaged but who reveal themselves to be something else entirely in their own sphere of expertise. A student might be routinely very late to class, quite hostile and rarely complete the reading, while simultaneously managing her family’s diamond business out of Hong Kong. Another student who may seem unengaged, sleepy and unresponsive could be, in fact, a paediatric organ nurse-courier, often taking late night interstate flights for emergency transplant procedures. These are both true examples. Post-school education policy in most countries is heavily weighted towards to perceived needs for school leavers. But school leavers usually only make up 50% of undergraduate enrolments–and a much smaller percentage of the overall student cohort when postgraduate coursework and research students are included in the count. Education is the key that opens the door to new futures. And, in what is becoming one of the most well-worn clichés of our time, universities have to keep an eye on the fact that young people today will have many jobs and many careers. In terms of considering future work, rather than focusing on one dream, a young person today could consider the types of job clusters that are likely to lead to skills that are transferable to other jobs in the future. Effectively, training or working in one job means that a learner is acquiring skills for up to 13 other jobs (Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). For example, ‘The Carers’ as a job cluster comprises jobs that seek to improve the mental or physical health or well-being of others, including medical care and personal support services (Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). ‘The Informers’ cluster comprises jobs that involve professionals providing information, education or business services (Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). This approach to future work also means that the sort of work a young person is engaged in today already provides the context for future work as early-career experience. In terms of skills, it is also the case that the study and work you do today is the basis of your strengths and skills for tomorrow (Foundation for Young Australians, 2017). In The 100-Year Life: Living and Working in an Age of Longevity, Gratton and Scott make the somewhat obvious point that living longer means that people will spend more time in the workforce. That in turn means a greater turnover in jobs and careers–the wheel keeps on turning (Gratton & Scott, 2016). What that means for universities

46

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

and other educational institutions is that a Bachelor degree will be under pressure in coming years as people find more economically efficient–shorter and cheaper–ways to upskill and reskill. Think about it: a three- or four-year degree is a huge investment in both time and money. And what if it is already obsolete by the time of graduation– or soon afterwards? This is a very real threat to the traditional university production line of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. Surveys show that a majority of people are open to further training and education after they graduate. A report by Deloitte in Australia in 2018 found that further study is often a virtuous circle: those who engage in it are more likely to be predisposed to do more of it in the future (Deloitte, 2018). Unsurprisingly, a key factor driving this appetite for work is a widespread recognition of the threat to jobs due to automation and new technologies with most people recognising that unpredictability and uncertainty are inevitable characteristics of future work. The challenge for policymakers is to figure out how to recognise stackable micro-credentials that can be built on piece by piece to create individualised and bespoke qualifications. That alone would go a long way to creating a learning-for-life culture that underpins 60-year careers. In recent years we have seen an explosion in higher education certificate and micro-credential programs–and modest growth in the number of students actually enrolling in them. These short-form “mini degrees” may indeed be a solution to the growing need for lifelong education. Yet the utter lack of consistency between institutions–and even within institutions–severely limits the impact of micro-credentials as serious academic offerings. There is a simple way to fix that. Micro-credentials require significantly less instruction time and effort than a full degree. The vast majority are delivered digitally, and graduates–or more correctly completers–receive a badge rather than a diploma. They come in at a fraction of the cost of a full degree and have very low barriers to entry. And they raise a lot of questions around quality, value and purpose. The range of specificity, price, program length and name in the micro-credential space is breathtaking and free of organising principle. Some certificates can be earned in a weekend, while others take over a year. One well-known traditional university offers a USD$4,335 certificate in data science that takes eight months to complete, while a “micro master” in statistics and data science basics from another prestigious requires more than twice the amount of time but costs just USD$1,350. Unsurprisingly, employers do not know how to sort through this thicket of credential programs. And where employers waver, students hesitate; the demand for certificates is limited, though hazy definitions and a lack of research make trends difficult to identify. An exception to this confusion can be found in third-party certifications: think Six Sigma certificates or programming bootcamps. These brands are tied to the universality of the skillsets they teach. In the case of Six Sigma, a widely adopted quality management method with quantifiable results; for the bootcamps, hard skills that an employer can verify with two or three questions. The solution is to create a standardised, widely recognisable micro-credential format tied to some third party certification. Let’s call it a specialist degree. Specialist degrees would be short and stackable towards Master’s degrees. We might think of them as the associates degree of the postgraduate world. Like the AA, they should be portable–which means a

3.6 In Learning, Life Experience Should Have Value

47

specialist degree received at one university should be stackable towards the Master’s degree at another university offering that same specialist degree. This idea requires a certifying body–an honest broker to own the trademark for each specialist degree and convene annually with the universities offering it to jointly set its basic parameters: what competencies will be taught, and how long should it take to learn each competency? Like any graduate program, the specialist degree experience will come in different flavours depending on where one studies. But prospective employers and students will trust that completion of a specialist degree will meaningfully indicate a clear set of competencies in the same way that every MD program is different, but we can expect certain skills and knowledge from a practising doctor. Specialist degrees will attract a broad range of students, and act as an on-ramp to Masters programs at participating schools. As they gain employer buyin, they will crowd out the one-off programs, and better position higher education to meet the rising demand for lifelong learning. The sixth radical suggestion in this chapter is that higher education should recognise life experience and embrace micro-credentials and disaggregated degrees. Universities need to better understand the motivations, aspirations and preferences of the current and future workforces, and engineer qualifications that are responsive and timely to both the needs of individuals and industry generally.

3.7 The Five Big Questions of Learning and Teaching The argument of this chapter is that higher education must provide a high-quality education and experience to students, from the moment they engage with the institution, right through the time in which they are a student, and beyond as alumni and continuing lifelong education. There should be confidence and trust in the institution they have chosen. Universities in turn must see themselves as being privileged in accepting students, live up to the promises made and do everything they can to support the student with their learning objectives. A bold institution may even embrace student-centred learning based on learner-centric constructionist learning theories, where most parts of the learner-institution relationship are a negotiated outcome of active learners collaborating with their university on their learning outcomes. This approach represents a new and informed and proactive partnership with students and their learning journey. To achieve these goals, there are five key questions any higher education institution needs to answer in relation to teaching and learning: First, who are the learners? This asks the questions: Who are the former and current learners of the university, and who do we want to be learners in the university in the future? What are their aspirations, expectations and needs? How is the university learning experience unique and differentiated from others? What is our ongoing relationship with learners (past, present and future) and what is their relationship with each other? How and when do our learners interact with other learners in other

48

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

contexts, and why? In answering these questions, equity is an important consideration, a point discussed further in Chap. 5. The term ‘learners’ must also be one that recognises the diverse background of students. Every single student is different. For all students, this is not just about equity of access but equity of opportunity and learning success, and everything within learning and teaching must celebrate and consider these contexts. Second, what is the learning experience at the university? How will students learn, how is this assessed and why is this designed this way? Where will students learn and why? What are the expectations in terms of physical and virtual learning environments and technologies in learning? When is a campus-based experience important, or required, for learning? When, why and how will learners have opportunities for learning experiences outside of the university context, including globally? Learning experience also considers where students learn. As discussed above, this recognises that for some students, learning in a 100% online environment is the only option (a full-time employee, with children, looking to re-skill, for example), whereas for other learners, blending on-campus with online is the preferred mode. This principle requires deep consideration as to when and where and why learners should be asked to come together to achieve learning outcomes, and the ways in which the university can extend beyond its boundaries to multi- or cross-disciplinary areas to meet student learning needs, including the possibility of integrative and socially inclusive approaches to learning. Truly embracing this requirement would necessarily lead to questioning the role of lectures, and rethinking when, and where, learners should engage in person and for what learning outcomes. Third, how is learning designed and assessed? What will students learn? Why are they learning this and is this explained to learners? What are the skills, competencies and knowledge required by students to achieve these outcomes, including digital skills and multiple literacies, and how will these be assessed? What content, learning activities and assessments will achieve these objectives? Are there cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary learning opportunities, why and when? What mechanisms are in place for lifecycle review and improvement of learning? What is the role of industry, business and professions in curriculum? Fourth, who are the educators? What will be their characteristics, qualifications, experiences and self-identity? How will they engage with learners? What is their role, how is that articulated and how are they are supported in their role in terms of professional learning and development? What is the relationship between research, teaching and service? How, when and to what extent are they engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning? Fifth, how is success measured? Is the university’s scorecard, or national metrics for university performance, the only measures of success? What should we benchmark against? How is continuous improvement and quality assurance embedded within the university’s approach to teaching and learning? What is the role of technology in measuring student retention, experience and engagement through the student lifecycle? Measures of success might also include metrics such as student satisfaction and progression (net promoter score, student progress rate, good teaching score, overall

3.7 The Five Big Questions of Learning and Teaching

49

satisfaction index, the percentage of graduates in employment, the percentage of graduates in further study, the percentage of graduates who are self-employed, the percentage of students commencing from low SES backgrounds, student and staff indigenous engagement); improved program quality, relevance and viability; consistent, effective and innovative delivery across all locations globally and increasingly digitally available; increased scholarship of teaching and learning; effective academic review and approval programs and courses; increased cross-disciplinary focus across programs and courses; enhanced student and academic outcomes resulting from a centred approach to academic and student experience; increased focus on staff on the value placed on learning and teaching by the university recognition of excellence in learning and teaching and student services; and increased program differentiation in the competitive international environment or program innovation in profile, content and delivery. The final radical idea of this chapter, therefore, is that a university must know who they are and have answers to the big questions of teaching and learning: who are the learners? Is a campus-experience required for learning? How is learning designed and assessed? Who are the educators and how is success measured? Overall, this chapter contends that higher education must future-proof itself by continuing to embrace an identity in the digital frontier and embrace new ways of recognising learning achievement. It is likely that the future will see even less of an emphasis on traditional undergraduate and postgraduate degrees with a greater focus on nano degrees and micro-learning, a greater use of digital and open badging to support learning, and personalised pathways to motivate learners, to recognise competency and to track educational attainment. There is a need to develop innovative business models and new compelling value propositions and products to meet current and future societal needs. Data-led insights into the shifting nature of the market necessitate agile, responsible approaches outside the traditional scope of higher education institutions. Most of all, this chapter contends that universities must focus on one of the most fundamental purposes of higher education: student learning.

References Accenture. (2016). Digital disruption embrace the future of work and your people will embrace it with you, 2016. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.accenture.com/au-en/insightdigital-disruption-future-of-work AlphaBeta Strategy X Economics. (2019). Future skills: To adapt to the future of work, australians will undertake a third more education and training and change what, when and how we learn. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://alphabeta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/googleskills-report.pdf Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Anderson, J., Madden, B. (2017). Australia: Compensation claims by students under the consumer law. Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers. August 13. Retrieved December 12, 2020,

50

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

from https://www.mondaq.com/australia/education/619318/compensation-claims-by-studentsunder-the-australian-consumer-law? Australian Government Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2019). Australia’s welfare 2019: Data insights. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.aihw.gov.au/rep orts/australias-welfare/australias-welfare-2019-data-insights/contents/summary Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2020). uCube–higher education data cube. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.education.gov.au/ucubehigher-education-data-cube Barthel, M. (2016). How to stop cheating in college. The Atlantic. April 20. Daniel, B. K. (2016). Learning model of recorded lectures: Implications to learning analytics theory and practice. May. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://link-springer-com-443.webvpn. fjmu.edu.cn/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-17727-4_2-1 Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75. Biggs, J., Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning. McGraw-Hill Companies. Bluic, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231–244. Bodde, D. (2004). Chinese ideas in the West. China: A teaching workbook, Asia for educators, Columbia university. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/chinawh/ web/s10/ideas.pdf Bosco, A. M., & Ferns, S. (2014). Embedding of authentic assessment in work-integrated learning curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(4), 281–290. Busby, M. (2019). Graduate receives £61,000 over ‘Mickey Mouse degree’ claim. The Guardian. June 3. Capgemini and LinkedIn (2017). The digital talent gap: Are companies doing enough?. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.capgemini.com/resources/digital-talent-gap/ Clayson, D. E., Haley, D. A. (2005). Marketing models in education: Students as customers, products, or partners. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 1–10. Cossar, S. (2014). Teacher tips: preventing cheating in the classroom. The ILSC Voice. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.ilsc.com/blog/2014/12/teacher-tips-preventing-cheatingclassroom/ Deloitte. (2017). What key competencies are required in the digital age?. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ch/Documents/innovation/chen-innovation-automation-competencies.pdf Deloitte. (2018). Higher education for a changing world. Ensuring the 100-year life is a better life. Retrieved 12 December 2020, from https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/public-sector/ articles/higher-education-changing-world.html Deneen, C. (2020). Assessment considerations in moving from closed-book to open-book exams. The university of Melbourne. Melbourne centre for the study of higher education. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/ 3341944/closed-book-to-open-book-exam_final.pdf Dori, Y. J., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. (2021). How much have they retained? making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 299–323. Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are student’s customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44–60. EDUCAUSE. (2019). Horizon report. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://library.educause. edu/resources/2019/4/2019-horizon-report Equinix. (2015). Unleashing the interconnected enterprise, equinox.com Oct, 2015 Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.equinix.com.au/resources/whitepapers/enterprise-of-thefuture/

References

51

Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The new work smarts: Thriving in the new world order. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.fya.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/FYA_ TheNewWorkSmarts_July2017.pdf Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410 Friesen, N. (2014). A brief history of the lecture: A multi-media analysis: Themenheft Nr 24: A brief history of the lecture–MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift. Glazer, F. (2012). Introduction. In F. Glazer (Eds.), Blended Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Sterling VA: Stylus Publishing Gratton, L., & Scott, A. (2016). The 100-year life: Living and working in an age of longevity. Bloomsbury. Haganauer, G., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Teacher-student relationship at university: An important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370–388. Harris, H. S., & Martin, E. W. (2012). Student motivations for choosing online classes.International Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2). Ilgaz, H., & Gulbahar, Y. (2017). Why do learners choose online learning: The learners’ voices. In Proceedings of International Association for Development of the Information Society, paper presented at the International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on E-Learning (pp. 20–22). Lisbon: Portugal, Jul 2017. Illinois CITL, (2020). Dealing with cheating. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://citl.ill inois.edu/citl-101/teaching-learning/resources/classroom-environment/dealing-with-cheating International Center for Academic Integrity. (2020). Statistics. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.academicintegrity.org/statistics/s Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Psychology Press. Maitre, M. (2006). At UC Berkeley, the all-nighter is an art. East Bay Times, October 16. Mann, S., Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 243–258. Massingham, P., & Herrington, T. (2006). Does attendance matter? An examination of student attitudes, participation, performance and attendance. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 3(2). McKie, A. (2019). Lecture capture reduces attendance, but students value it. Inside Higher Ed, July 5. McNeilage, A., Visentin, L., & Dou, Y. (2014).: The mastermind behind the university essay writing machine. The Sydney Morning Herald. November, 12. MinterEllison. (2016). The application of the Australian Consumer Law to the university-student relationship. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.minterellison.com/articles/the-app lication-of-the-australian-consumer-law-to-the-university-student-relationship Mueller, J. (2018). What is authentic assessment? Authentic assessment toolbox. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B., & Coop, T. (2019). Lecture recordings to support learning: A contested space between students and teachers.Computers and Education, 140. October 2019. Oaten, M., Cheng, K., (2005). Academic examination stress impairs self-control.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 254–279. Parliament of Australia. (2019). Tertiary education quality and standards agency amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019. Powell, M. (2020). What is social learning (and how to adopt it). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.docebo.com/blog/what-is-social-learning-how-to-adopt-it/ Prince, M. (2003). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

52

3 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

PwC. (2014). The future of work: A journey to 2022. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// www.pwc.com/ee/et/publications/pub/future-of-work-report.pdf Reeson, A., Mason, C., Sanderson, T., Bratanova, A., & Hajkowicz, S. (2016). The VET era: Equipping Australia’s workforce for the future digital economy. Report for TAFE Queensland. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP1 62981&dsid=DS2 Sirvanci, M. (1996). Are the students the true customers of higher education? Quality Progress. October, 99–102. Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of American education course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial] 4(2). Stockman, F., Mureithi, C. (2019). Cheating, Inc.: How writing papers for american college students has become a lucrative profession overseas. The New York Times. September 7. Taguma, M., Feron, E., & Lim, M. H. (2018). OECD future of education and skills 2030: Conceptual learning framework: A literature summary for research on the transfer of learning. October 22. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/A-Literature-Sum mary-for-Research-on-the-Transfer-of-Learning.pdf Van Bergen, P., Lane, R. (2014). Exams might be stressful, but they improve learning. The Conversation. December 19. UNESCO 2017. Working Group on Education, Digital Skills for Life and Work. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002590/259013e.pdf Velayo, R. S. (1993). Retention of visual and verbal content and perceived self-competence in audio-visual instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(4), 296. Weimer, M. (2016). Is it time to rethink our exams?. Faculty Focus. August 24. Wong, A., Murchie, M. (2010). Are exams a more effective tool to assess students than coursework?. South China Morning Post. June 9. Yorke, H. (2017). More than 20,000 university students buying essays and dissertations as Lords call for ban on ‘contract cheating’. The Telegraph. January 13. Zeek, M. L., Savoie, M. J., Song, M., Kennemur, L. M., Qian, J., Jungnickel, P. W., & Westrick, S. C. (2015). Sleep duration and academic performance among student pharmacists. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(5), 63.

Chapter 4

Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Abstract This chapter discusses the use of technologies to enhance learning and teaching and, importantly, the importance of digital competencies for learners today given there is no conceivable future in which technology will not play a part. Building on the discussion in Chap. 3, this chapter suggests that academics modernise and develop digital skills to be part of the digital age, just as students also require digital skills. A radical suggestion in this chapter is that higher education itself should transform through the use of technology. Keywords Learning Technologies · Digital Literacy · Augmented Reality · Virtual Reality · Wearables · Artificial Intelligence · Adaptive Learning · Digital Transformation · Academic Digital Skills

4.1 There Are Multiple Technologies Available for Learning The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the role of technology in learning and teaching in higher education. It is a timely topic as in 2020, the world experienced a completely unanticipated technology revolution in learning when all learning institutions shifted fully online. The impact of COVID-19 on learning was dramatic, yet the potential of technology to impact on education has been long discussed. Today, at its more sophisticated, there are a multitude of possibilities for learner engagement to embrace–including artificial intelligence, machine learning, The Internet of Things, augmented and virtual worlds, chatbots and virtual assistants, robotics and blockchain–for rich, engaging learning experiences, and for new ways of social connection and collaboration. The digital frontier in teaching and learning also refers to the University positioning itself as an educator for the needs of individuals, industry, government and society, as well as taking advantage of the possibilities that digital transformation presents for institutions. A university must shift to a technology architecture and environment that creates and supports intelligent digital services, technologies and platforms. The university must embrace the application of data analytics, including automation and artificial intelligence, to drive business processes and create the foundation for an agile organisation.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_4

53

54

4 Learning Technologies in Higher Education

There is a rich history of learning technologies. Beyond the early use of the abacus and slate board, it was as early as the 1920s that the British Broadcasting Corporation started broadcasting educational content for students on radio (Webb, 2020), which might be counted as the earliest days of distance education in the pre-PC era. The overhead projector was a revolution in the 1930s, the ballpoint pen in 1940, headphones in 1950, the photocopier in 1959 and calculator in 1972 (Purdue University Online, 2020). In the 1970s, the introduction of television was integrated into courses by the UK’s Open University, supplementing printed materials with radio and television programs using educational content such as documentaries, demonstration content and case studies (Bates, 2019). Computer-based learning really took off in the 1970–1980s, with the emergence of the first true virtual learning environments. For example, PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) was created at the University of Illinois as a teaching tool and the very beginning of online communities (Jones, 2015). Personal computers were a child of the 1980s, with Toshiba releasing the T1100 laptop in 1985, and the Mac first available in 1984 (Purdue University Online, 2020). In the 1990s, the biggest game-changer for education in the world was undoubtedly the introduction of the internet. In the mid-1990s, the first online learning environments were introduced through Learning Management Systems (LMS), including WebCT (later Blackboard) (Bates, 2019). In the mid- to late-2000s, lecture capture systems arrived. The democratisation of education occurs with Web 2.0; the development of the next interaction of the internet with read/write capabilities with a new emphasis on user-generated content (Technopedia, 2020). At around the same time, early social media platforms such as MySpace and Facebook started, along with blogs, wikis, Twitter and Skype, all with various educational applications. In 2001, for example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) published all educational materials from its undergraduate and graduate-level courses online, openly available to anyone, called MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW). What we now know to be a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) took off, with an explosion of providers (today including Coursera, FutureLearn, Open2Study, Udacity, SWAYAM (India), XuetangX (China) and edX). Most universities have also introduced free, online open courses, with varying levels of success. In the mid-2000s other educational providers were introduced, including educational content on YouTube (starting in 2005), the Khan Academy (in 2006), iTunesU (2007) and Coursera (2012).

4.2 Augmented, Virtual Reality and Higher Education Learning Right now, technology is all about the new realities–virtual (VR), mixed (MR), augmented (AR) and eXtended (XR)–reality technologies that allows learners to

4.2 Augmented, Virtual Reality and Higher Education Learning

55

experience immersive learning experiences. All of these technologies have a potential application to learning. Augmented reality (AR) is a digital layer over a scene from the “real world”. You may have seen, for example, an app that allows you to digitally position a chair in your lounge room to see if it really can fit, or an overlay over a piece of machinery to tell you what bit is where and how to replace a gasket. Virtual reality (VR) environments are those with a three-dimensional artificial environment coupled with a VR headset to create an immersive and interactive experience, often using some form of controller. VR is digitally and fully immersive, where users don futuristic goggles, headset wearables or similar to visit a digital environment. Across most industries, including retail, defence, oil and gas, sports and manufacturing, VR is being used for learning. In learning, AR, VR and MR allow learning to expand to places and environments that no learner can realistically go (the surface of the moon for example). Learners can also perform tasks and learning activities that are dangerous or expensive in real life (a plane crash) or can break the bounds of reality to do something that cannot be done in real life (harm a patient to see the outcome, for example). For example, an augmented simulation app (Touchsurgery 2020) can provide interactive surgical simulations for healthcare professionals, with more than 200 separate operations –even for a non-medical novice, there is much to be learnt from performing a knee reconstruction in what is effectively a sophisticated mobile game on an iPad. The research behind this one augmented reality app shows that cognitive training is as important as practical training in decision-making during surgery, and indeed performing a knee operation on iPad at least six consecutive times would increase the ability to perform all surgical tasks correctly (Piromchai et al., 2015). In health sciences, for example, students can see an animated, augmented-reality 3D beating heart simply using their mobile device. Theatrical set designers can visualise in 3D a stage design, creating a visualisation from their imagination, and astronomy students can watch holographic stars form before their very eyes. To go further than just a virtual environment, even more sophisticated virtual reality training can incorporate haptic feedback to create a sensation of touch. For example, you can actually feel the resistance of skin against a scalpel. A virtual reality-enabled tactical wearable glove, for example, provides an actual physical interaction with a virtual object by inflating and deflating more than 100 tiny blisters of air across the surface of your hand, simulating a feeling or sensation that you are actually touching something (Trenholm, 2018).

4.3 Wearables and Higher Education Learning In the last few years, there has been an explosion of the use of ‘wearables’–a device worn to track fitness, monitor your sleep or to notify of incoming calls and emails. Wearable technology is one that you incorporate into your everyday life as watches, earrings, rings or necklaces. The possibility exists for a future with wearables that read your mind and translate thoughts into actions, such as implantable wearables

56

4 Learning Technologies in Higher Education

(PYMNTS, 2019). In this case a person would have “an implant embedded directly into their brain to gain access to the motor neurons that govern motion. Using a combination of the neural implant technology, natural biological wiring and the wearable device, the user could control various smart devices and technology with their own thoughts” (PYMNTS, 2019). There are so many potentials for learning with these technologies. One study, by Garcia et al., examined the use of smartwatches as tools for situated science reflection for school-aged children by linking everyday experiences to science concepts, demonstrating that using a wearable in this way increased science self-efficacy (Garcia et al. 2018). Wearables have also been shown to support educative role-play, provide just-in-time notifications in a learning environment, and record bodily experiences during educational experiences (heart rate, for example) (Lee and Shapiro, 2019).

4.4 Artificial Intelligence, Adaptive Learning and Higher Education Artificial intelligence (AI) is described as a task performed by a program or machine that, if a human carried out the same activity, he or she would have to apply intelligence to accomplish the task (Heath, 2018). One example is the use of AI in chatbots and virtual assistants, which are programs that can have a real-time (intelligent) conversation with a human. The more modern variants of these are a lot smarter than the frustrating, simple examples of those from the late 1990s and early 2000s to the extent that it can be difficult to distinguish between a chatbot and a real human. One example of this is Google’s Assistant seamlessly calling a hair salon, where the receiver of the call had no idea that they were in fact talking to a computer (Welch, 2018), and many people are now interacting with Siri, Cortana or Alexa to assist them in their daily activities. In higher education, virtual assistants can meet student needs such as providing university information or support services (EDUCAUSE, 2019). The future of virtual assistants is endless: research, tutoring, writing and editing (EDUCAUSE, 2019). AI also has the potential to personalise and adapt to a student’s particular learning preferences. Analytics technologies, referring to the discovery, interpretation and communication of patterns in data, and using that information towards evidencebased decision making, allows higher education to create customised learning pathways which will go a long way towards boosting for learner progress and success. In maths education, for example, AI can adjust curriculum to a learner’s level of comprehension. Higher education also has the potential to use predictive analytics technology. Most modern LMS’s embed these capabilities, to some extent. Leveraging predictive analytics allows higher education to identify patterns relating to student learning, resulting in adaptation and personalisation of the learning experience (Rowe, 2019).

4.4 Artificial Intelligence, Adaptive Learning and Higher Education

57

One example is Chinese-based start-up with an AI-powered adaptive learning solution that responds to student interaction in real-time by providing students with individual support. A teaching robot scans user profiles and knowledge points to identify which knowledge points they have mastered, and which points they need to work on (Squirrel AI Learning, 2019). Beyond personalised learning, AI can also be used for automatic grading and performance assessment, even beyond just marking multiple choice questions: online proctoring can ensure the authenticity of tests and provide feedback to students on assessments (Gill, 2019). AI could also have an impact on recruitment and admissions practices, student retention and elements of the student lifecycle (Wiley Education Services, 2020). Blockchain refers to a distributed ledger technology allowing data to be stored globally on thousands of distributed servers, letting anyone on the network see everyone else’s entries in near real time (Mearian, 2019). In higher education, blockchain will revolutionise student records and credentialing, providing a secure way to collect and share academic records and other accumulated skills, competencies and knowledge. Blockchain could be used for student transcripts and certification, digital certificates, smart contracts, identity management and simply the way in which higher education organises, stores and validates student data (EDUCAUSE, 2019). If we want to get even more futuristic, another possibility is the world of robotics. Humanoid robots are potentially the future of classroom teaching (Newton and Newton 2019). Humanoid robots can actually answer any question or on the basis that you learn by teaching; some robots even have students teach them. AI-powered robots have already taken over lecturing in some university lecture halls (World Economic Forum 2019).

4.5 Learning in Higher Education Can Be Enhanced by Technology Learning technologies can be dismissed as gimmicks or distractions. Yet, there is significant evidence on the role of technology-enabled learning in higher education, such as from this annual Horizon Report (EDUCAUSE, 2019). These technologies are already proving, through evidence, to improve both learner engagement and learner retention. Data analytics, personalised learning, online learning, machine learning and driving learning all dominate the discussion. In designing learning, however, it is really quite simple. It is important not to take a romanticised view of the role of technology in higher education. Humans are social beings and learn from each other, whether in person or online. Regardless of how immersive, visually stunning, clever or robotic it gets, technology is always just a tool to set the conditions for learner engagement. The aim of learning design is to help learners learn. Although technology is not capable of effecting learning by itself, it does provide

58

4 Learning Technologies in Higher Education

a new opportunity for education providers to live up to their student promise. The world’s best practices in data analytics allows intelligent digital services, technologies and platforms to create actionable insights to ensure that the student’s experience, success, completion and continued connection with the university is truly excellent. The world’s best practice in using technology for the student lifecycle is not, however, simply effective use of the LMS, a tack-on API or yet another ed-tech application. Learning providers require digital leadership. In today’s digital age, having both appropriate digital skills and harnessing the opportunities technology brings to education is crucial for a university positioning for continuous change. This even extends to organisational structure. There can be masses of data, but unless there is a systematic approach to harnessing, analysing and actioning it, data becomes relatively useless. Technology is not going to achieve this by itself. It is simply an enabler. As discussed in Chap. 3, removing the lecture altogether and replacing it with blended learning (the systematic combination of co-present (face-to-face) interactions and technologically mediated interactions between students, teachers and learning resources) brings the best of both worlds to higher education. Provided online lectures, perhaps divided into shorter blocks, along with additional learning content, can clearly satisfy the learner-content components of learning, and leave the face-to-face interactions for more actively based learning environments. In all cases, learning environments should be transformed to be engaging, with the smart design of learning environments (both online and on campus), and the clever incorporation of learning technologies. This would include a meaningful consideration as to the best environment for learning, referring to the physical and virtual location, contexts and cultures in which students learn. It would also include the best learning technologies to achieve learning outcomes and to transform student experience and engagement. In incorporating learning technologies, consideration would be given as to when learners should engage with content, with their facilitator and with each other to achieve the best in learning outcomes. A digital revolution is transforming the ways in which students can engage with learning. In designing learning, there are some key questions to ask. First, “what do learners need to be able to do?”–including a focus on future skills, knowledge and competencies (learning objectives). These are expressed as learning intended outcomes. Second, “what forms of assessment will be best able to demonstrate this?” Third, “how and where will learning take place (learning environment)?” Fourth, “what will learners be required to do, and how will learners interact with content, instructors and each other?” The use of technology in learning should be considered in this context. Most importantly, as José Bowen’s advice in Naked Teaching suggests, sometimes technology should be removed from the classroom and leave those in the room to just to engage with each other in the space (Bowen, 2012). The best learning can occur in a simple discussion. Learning is ultimately a social activity: discussion, interaction and community are important. There is no need for technology to get in the way. In this design methodology, the role of a facilitator or teacher is to create the conditions for engagement in learning. This means that the learner is rightfully positioned at the centre. In setting the conditions for engagement in learning, there is a

4.5 Learning in Higher Education Can Be Enhanced by Technology

59

need to consider first, personalisation (where the pace of or approach to learning is adjusted to meet the needs of individual learners); second, learner-learner interaction, learner-content interaction and learner-teacher interaction; and third, the use of experiential learning, real-life learning, co-design of curriculum and recognition of past experience.

4.6 Universities and Academics Must Modernise and Develop Digital Skills to Effectively Teach Modern Students As lecture materials have become digitised over time, the poverty, and downright weirdness of some in the educational experiences became embarrassingly public. Simultaneously, students demanded the convenience and flexibility of online learning materials. Many social transactions and practices have changed as the internet has developed. Nobody expects to stand in line for money at bank tellers’ counters. Traveller’s cheques have disappeared, music is streamed, landlines are vanishing, print newspapers are shrinking and letter writing is practically a lost art. Many students want to learn as they live–moving easily between synchronous and face-to-face and online and asynchronous as the need arises. For many academic staff, this is a difficult pincer movement, requiring them simultaneously to improve their pedagogical understanding and to become technologically accomplished. However, this means that universities must address the needs of the range of learners in a digital age, and that in turn means urgent development of staff digital skills and pedagogical capacities: the ultimate in herding cats. And then, with COVID-19, academics were forced into the digital age literally overnight. Rethinking one’s practice is hard. Rather than reconceptualising their methods as students become more nomadic, academics may complain to students about the absurdity of the university requiring online resources. Academics are typically displeased when students do not show up to lectures (whether in person or online), and incurious about their own possible contribution to poor attendance, such as “PowerPoint Karaoke”, three-hour oral presentations, or reading from textbooks. There can be even less curiosity shown about the logistical reasons students may have for not wanting to attend a lecture in person. They may wish to review lecture materials several times, they may have a sprained ankle, a sick child or car problems. In addition, there is typically a mismatch between the digital experiences of many teaching staff and those of students. Students usually need to learn how to use the internet for sophisticated research, but they generally begin their studies knowing how to use the internet interpersonally, to interact with others via chat rooms, subreddits and social media. They may be more engaged by visual materials and dot point materials than lengthy PDFs. Academics, on the other hand, may have used online resources to aid research, as a document repository or to send email, but may not use them socially.

60

4 Learning Technologies in Higher Education

A radical suggestion of this chapter is, therefore, that academics must change their ways and learn to be part of the digital age. Clearly there will be increased demand for digital learning experience and instructional design expertise in higher education in the future (EDUCAUSE, 2019). The stories about elderly academics reading the same lectures from crumbling documents for 40 years are not entirely apocryphal. Even in COVID-19, some simply switched to reading their lectures online. Universities must provide the workshops, toolkits, templates and seminars to make digital competence and the skills to develop highly engaging online learning materials a non-negotiable part of professional development. Continuing employment for academics who are not research-only must be contingent on this.

4.7 Higher Education Can also Improve Through Technology Behind the scenes of some universities, there are back rooms drowning in paper and manual processes, inordinate and frustrating inefficiencies, and operating within a data void in siloed, unaligned organisational structures. Dysfunctional silos exist right across higher education institutions. Data insights, even where they exist outside of manual processes, are usually not effectively used to drive visibility over student lifecycle or operational efficiencies. Student data is not held in a master plan but instead fragmented across the organisation, housed in multiple databases. There is the inability to easily (or at all) visualise and share insights on individual students at either a micro or macro level. The university is likely to have at least 200 separate technology applications. There is almost certainly a people and process misalignment. Internal processes and activities in the university are unlikely to be in alignment with overall or functional strategies, and the culture of the university is not one that fosters the innovation necessary to be forward looking. There is probably also strategy misalignment, with a lack of executive sponsors acting as champions of change. There are most likely to be security and/or compliance concerns, and even possibly a lack of awareness of the need to effectively implement data security and privacy, and an inability to partner across the organisation. Overall, there is a huge opportunity for universities to improve their entire operation through the use of technology. There is a desperate need for digital transformation. By doing so, higher education can future-proof itself by embracing a new identity in the digital frontier. This includes positioning itself as an educator for the needs of individuals, industry, government and society as well as taking advantage of the possibilities that digital transformation presents. This is imperative for a University to survive in tomorrow’s world. To do this, higher education will need to create a technology architecture that supports learning, teaching, research, students, staff, partners and the entire organisation. This means that universities need to embrace data analytics in a new way, including a data-driven strategy as the foundation,

4.7 Higher Education Can also Improve Through Technology

61

providing insights into higher education, competition, retention, products and partners. A university should have visibility of student motivations and behaviours to drive personalisation and 360-degree view of students’ progression in real time. Higher education must deliver on the promises made to students. As part of this, higher education must enable, activate and harness data, analytics and insights to develop a real-time, multi-dimensional view of learners to create strategies and personalised approaches to the student experience. A digitally enabled technology infrastructure would mean that higher education can engineer intelligent digital services, technologies and platforms to deliver on the student promise. This would include the use of automation and artificial intelligence to drive business processes and create the foundation for higher education of an agile mindset and practices in terms of the way higher education operates. The university needs to be supported by a technology stack that has the necessary security in place to protect data, systems and products. Finally, a university requires statistical and advanced tools for the purposes of compliance and government reporting. A final radical suggestion in this chapter is that higher education should transform through the use of technology. A digitally transformed technology environment using data analytics to deliver on student and staff experience would have a huge impact on higher education. This requires institutions to have, to name just a few: • a data-driven strategy as the foundation, providing insights into higher education, competition, retention, products and partners; • visibility of student motivations and behaviours to drive personalisation and 360degree view of students’ progression in real time; • a technology stack that has the necessary security in place to protect data, systems and products; and • statistical and advanced tools for the purposes of compliance and government reporting. Embedding technology in organisations for learning also, importantly and most of all, requires transformative leadership. Although it is complex to implement, you cannot compare the complexity of technology to the complexity of people. In the higher education setting, for example, data analytics is actually a transformational architecture enabling higher education to deliver on the promise made to its students. As such, it requires alignment at an executive level, where the Vice-Chancellor and Provost’s role is to lead a new way of working new way of working, the Chief Financial Officer makes the investment to fund the transformation, the Chief Information Officer aligns with the business and IT strategies to drive transformation and the role of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or equivalent is to lead student and experience design, and to translate across and beyond the university to make sure the transformation sticks.

62

4 Learning Technologies in Higher Education

References Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age (2nd edition). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/section-8-1-a-short-history-ofeducational-technology/ Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. EDUCAUSE. (2019). 2019 Horizon report. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://library.edu cause.edu/resources/2019/4/2019-horizon-report Garcia, B., Lynn, S., Nam, B., & Banigan, C. (2018). Wearables for learning: Examining the smartwatch as a tool for situated science reflection. Conference paper. Association for computing machinery. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/pro file/Sharon_Lynn_Chu/publication/324663594_Wearables_for_Learning_Examining_the_Sma rtwatch_as_a_Tool_for_Situated_Science_Reflection/links/5b3da639aca272078511a68c/Wea rables-for-Learning-Examining-the-Smartwatch-as-a-Tool-for-Situated-Science-Reflection.pdf Gill, M. (2019). 5 Ways artificial intelligence and chatbots are changing education. Towards Data Science. January 12. Heath, N. (2018). What is AI? Everything you need to know about artificial intelligence. ZDNet. February 12. Jones, S. (2015). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.bri tannica.com/topic/PLATO-education-system Lee, V., Shapiro, R. (2019). A broad view of wearables as learning technologies: Current and emerging applications. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/pub lication/334110788_A_Broad_View_of_Wearables_as_Learning_Technologies_Current_and_ Emerging_Applications Mearian, L. (2019). What is blockchain? The complete guide. 30 January 2019. Computerworld. January 30. Newton, D. P., Newton L. D. (2019). Humanoid robots as teachers and a proposed code of practice. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2019.00125/full Piromchai, P., Avery, A., Laopaiboon, M., Kennedy, G., & O’Leary, S. (2015). Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat. Cochrane Database System Review 9(9). September. Purdue University Online. 2020. The evolution of technology in the classroom. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/evolution-technology-classroom PYMNTS. (2019). Wearables that read your mind. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www. pymnts.com/innovation/2019/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-on-wearables-that-read-your-mind/ Rowe, B. (2019). The importance of predictive analytics in higher education. Inside Big Data. April 22. Squirrel AI Learning. (2019). Squirrel AI learning attends tech crunch disrupt, explains how AI revolutionizes education. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.prnewswire.com/ news-releases/squirrel-ai-learning-attends-tech-crunch-disrupt-explains-how-ai-revolutionizeseducation-300776049.html Technopedia. (2020). Web 2.0. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.techopedia.com/ definition/4922/web-20 Touchsurgery from Medtronic. (2020). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.touchsurg ery.com Trenholm, R. (2018). I wore the VR glove that fools your skin as well as your eyes. CNet. January 26. Webb, A. (2020). Under siege: Educating the nation. BBC. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/educating-the-nation Welch, C. (2018). Google just gave a stunning demo of assistant making an actual phone call. The Verge. May 8.

References

63

Wiley Education Services. (2020). 5 Ways artificial intelligence may influence higher education admissions and retention. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://edservices.wiley.com/artifi cial-intelligence-in-higher-ed-admissions-retention/ World Economic Forum. (2019). Professor robot–why AI could soon be teaching in university classrooms. 23 April 2019. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/age nda/2019/04/what-robots-and-ai-may-mean-for-university-lecturers-and-students/

Chapter 5

Access and Affordability

Abstract One of the underpinning drivers of higher education systems is to extend its many benefits to people from all walks of life. Equity is fundamental to the mission of higher education policy and practice. Technology potentially plays an invaluable role by giving high-quality and low-cost access to higher education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, regulation and student support are critical to ensure the potential of online learning is fulfilled. At the same time, universities must become much more flexible in what they deliver, how they deliver and how they structure and award qualifications. Fundamental to this is a rethinking of the relationship between vocational and higher education to create a unified ‘ecosystem’ that does not discriminate or prioritise one form of learning or one system of education of the other. Central to all, equity policy must be a focus on student-centred learning in all its myriad forms. Keywords Access · Equity · Diversity · Student Debt · Tuition Fees · Digital Equity · Microcredentials · Admission Practices · Retention and Attrition · Higher Education Affordability

5.1 Higher Education, Equity and the Emerging Paradox The massification of higher education is a worldwide phenomenon. Over the past five decades, higher education systems across the globe have gone from elite (less than 10% of school leavers) to universal (40% and higher). The underpinning driver of this has been to extend the many benefits of higher education–economic and social– to people from all walks of life. It is fundamentally about equity. Recent estimates suggested that more than 250 million students are enrolled in universities and higher education colleges around the world (Calderon, 2018)–many not in their own home country. Some predicted there will be close to 600 million higher education students around the globe by 2040 (Calderon, 2018). However, the COVID-19 pandemic, as discussed in the next chapter, will have put a serious dent in such exuberant predictions. More people from all backgrounds attending university must be a good thing (Hill et al., 2005). To quote an influential paper: “Higher education provides considerable value to individuals, the economies where educated individuals work © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_5

65

66

5 Access and Affordability

and live, and society in general” (Hill et al., 2005). But, an uncomfortable paradox is emerging. A 2019 report from the consultancy firm KPMG summed it up like this: “The drivers of inequality are various and complex but if 40% of the population goes to university and enjoys an earnings premium and 60% don’t, then over time the gap will widen between the two groups” (Parker et al. 2018). The point is this: if the same kinds of families go to university over generations, then increasingly one’s destiny is sealed by the circumstances of one’s birth. Higher education might be actually entrenching rather than alleviating disadvantage. The KPMG report puts it this way: “This is not the equality of opportunity which had been hoped for by the advocates of higher education expansion, it is social immobility” (Parker et al. 2018). And, of course, the more socially advantaged have more access to higher equality educational offerings than their less well-off peers. Of course, divergence–of opportunity, educationally, socially, economically and in health outcomes–happens long before university is even on the radar. A report on inequality from the Committee for Economic Development in Australia argues there are three key equity groups in Australia: those from low socioeconomic status households, indigenous people and people who live in rural or remote areas. “These groups often overlap, resulting in compounded educational disadvantage. Thus, the students who experience the highest levels of educational inequality in Australia are low-income indigenous students who reside in rural/remote areas” (CEDA, 2018). That same report reveals financially disadvantaged students experience the equivalent of 4.5 years less schooling than their wealthier peers. The same disparity between basic education happens in nations across the world (Reardon, 2011). A report for the Mitchell Institute, at Victoria University in Australia, argued there were devastating social and fiscal costs to Australia from the early disengagement of young people from the school system (Lamb & Huo, 2017). The report estimated a lifetime fiscal cost to the economy of AUD$12.6 billion and social cost of AUD$23.2 billion. They also estimated the consequential cost to society of lifetime disengagement totalling AUD$69.3 billion (in 2014 net present value). And all this is happening against a backdrop in which millennials are the first generation to be less well off than their parents–partly due, in the USA at least, to the amount of student debt they carry (Picchi, 2018).

5.2 Is Higher Education Worth the Price? Debt and Affordability The student debt crisis in the USA is well documented (Ingraham, 2019). Some 44 million Americans collectively hold over USD$1.6 trillion in student debt (FRED Economic Data, 2020)–a figure that amounts to nearly 8% of national income. As many as 7 million people in the US are in default (Barr et al., 2019). As The Washington Post has reported, the impact of so much debt is having consequences across the economic and social strata of the nation that would have been unimaginable in

5.2 Is Higher Education Worth the Price? Debt and Affordability

67

the 1970s (Ingraham, 2019). Graduates are delaying marriage and having families; young people are less likely to set up businesses and buy homes; it’s impacting on savings and retirement funds. Student debt is, quite simply, causing students to “give up on their dreams”. At the same time, a bachelor’s degree has become a “baseline requirement for a living wage” (Ingraham, 2019). So, while student debt was once largely confined to those who pursued graduate and professional programs to lock down careers with high earnings potential, rising tuition and changes in the labour market have made it difficult for many to obtain credentials without resorting to borrowing. Put that amount of debt against the backdrop of a COVID-19-ravaged economy and poor employment prospects, and the situation looking forward is not pretty. The situation in most other advanced countries is not so dramatic. In Australia, for example, while private contributions to higher education are among the highest in the OECD, the costs are offset by a well-developed system of financial support known as income contingent loans. The loans, created by Australian National University economist Professor Bruce Chapman in the 1980s, are now implemented–in various forms–in New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, Namibia, Hungary, Thailand, South Korea, the Netherlands and Malaysia. Despite its well-publicised student debt crisis, even the USA has a hybrid version–multiple versions in fact. It has been estimated that about a quarter of the USA’s students have access to access to income-contingent loans, although there are multiple schemes with varying rules. In Australia, the average student debt sits around AUD$20,000 and takes an average of nine years to pay off (West, 2018). Compare that to New Zealand, where the average debt is AUD$14,300 (Stuff, 2018); the UK, where the average debt is AUD$39,500 (only 30% of graduates are expected to repay in full) (UK Parliament, House of Commons Library 2020); and the USA, where the average debt is AUD$48,000 and the average repayment time is 10–23 years (West, 2018)–with high rates of default, as mentioned above. As the costs of higher education–and the size of student debt–have increased over time, and as more people graduate from university programs, the benefits have unsurprisingly slid. As Alison Wolf told The Australian in 2016: “It is morally outrageous that we encourage young people to take out big loans [for university] and give up years of their lives when it is increasingly obvious that in some universities the average earnings of graduates are lower than the average salary of non-graduates” (Hare, 2016). The beauty of the income-contingent loan system is that it has built in a security net so that repayments are only made– and on a sliding scale–according to annual earnings, with low-income earners not required to make payments. Indeed, we would argue that income-contingent loans are a radical idea–they were radical when they were introduced in Australia in 1989 and they are still radical today. The surprising thing is that more countries across the globe, including the USA, have not adopted ICLs. (A bill proposing the adoption of an ICL scheme was submitted to the US Congress in 2013; while it did not pass, it is widely regarded that there is a real reform impetus towards ICL in the USA (Barr et al., 2019)). As Professor Bruce Chapman, the creator of income-contingent loans, told the Times Higher Education in 2019: not only are there personal benefits from ICLs

68

5 Access and Affordability

by protecting individuals from debt collectors should they not collect the anticipated rewards of their education, there are also national benefits, saving taxpayers significant amounts of money in higher education systems. He noted that those countries that had adopted income-contingent loans had been able to grow their systems substantially (Chapman, 2019). For those who are not aware of ICLs, they are a system of higher education financing in which domestic students’ upfront fees are covered by the government (which also contributes to the cost of the education to varying degrees depending on the course of study). Even though students are obligated to repay their loans, there is an inbuilt safety net–repayments are deferred until a graduate’s annual income reaches a certain threshold. This ensures students are not made to repay debt for an education from which they have not benefited financially. Repayments levels are set as a percentage of income which increases as annual income gets higher. Importantly, repayments are collected through the taxation system, much like income tax, thereby ensuring repayments are not defaulted on.

5.3 Digital Equity Matters Equity is about fairness; it is about ensuring that every student who has the ability to participate fully in higher education has the opportunity to do so. The concept also applies to technology. The concept of digital equity has been around for a decade or more and refers to the idea that all students have equal access to technology, the necessary skills to use digital tools effectively and the full access to the internet. In Australia at least, none of these three elements are assured, particularly in rural and regional areas (and all-too-often cities) where access to high-quality, high-speed bandwidth in order to complete educational tasks can be patchy at best. COVID-19, of course, brought digital equity–or more precisely digital inequity– into stark relief. Indeed, a paper for Australia’s National Centre for Equity in Higher Education, made the point that, as COVID-19 restrictions were eased across the country, low socioeconomic status (SES) university students had “to square up two new risks–do they persist with online learning despite inadequate digital resources, or do they return to campus and risk heightened exposure to COVID-19 on public transport?” (Raciti et al., 2020) As the authors note: “The transition to online delivery of courses has drawn widespread attention to the digital divide and the need for digital equality, exposing the lack of access to digital resources, such as reliable internet and devices, particularly for people from low SES backgrounds and illuminates what is a global social justice issue.” The dilemma is real, particularly in countries like Australia where there is a powerful correlation between proximity to a university campus and enrolment levels. Put simply, the further away you live from a campus, the less likely you are to go to university (and the less likely you are to have access to high-functioning internet).

5.3 Digital Equity Matters

69

One radical solution offered by Apjit Walia, the global head of technology strategy at Deutsche Bank, is that the big tech companies should “pay for millions of lowerincome Americans to get what they need to go online” (Ovide, 2020). Based on his research (Deutsche Bank, 2020), Walia proposed a five-year plan for big tech companies to spend a collective USD$15 billion on three things for millions of poor and disenfranchised households: providing discounted internet service, supplying basic computers, and providing mentorship and education on technical skills (Ovide, 2020).

5.4 Can Technology Address the Equity Paradox? Given the fundamental importance of higher education in opening up opportunity to individuals from all walks of life and to also improving national economic performance, the question for governments–given the emerging paradox–is how to ensure that higher education continues to play a transformational role in the lives of those who were not born with the luck of genetics, healthy bank balances, geographical proximity to university campuses and access to decent schooling. As has been obvious in recent decades, many governments are increasingly withdrawing their financial obligation to higher education with the majority of the cost being shifted onto individuals and institutions. In Chap. 2, we looked at some of the policy options that governments might consider in the post-COVID-19 environment in which taxpayer funding is extremely tight. Obviously, a return to elite education is out of the question–although governments that previously embraced demand-driven funding models, including in Australia and the UK, have in recent years back-pedalled by reintroducing caps on student enrolments. Constraints on student places reinforce an elitist approach which sees the most privileged members of society more likely to be afforded the luxury of a taxpayer-funded boost to their already advantaged circumstances (Chapman, 2001). As discussed elsewhere in this book, advances in technology and its pervasive use across almost all educational settings and experiences–especially since COVID19–is inextricably tied to ongoing improvements in equality of access while keeping costs subdued. We do not advocate that digital education is the only solution, but it is a major consideration, with almost limitless possibilities as technologies become more sophisticated. The argument is simply one of economies of scale. If many more students can access high-quality learning materials online–with adequate highquality support–then the cost and availability of higher education must surely come down. While the promise of MOOCs, as discussed elsewhere in this book, has not been fully realised in the manner that the founders imagined, that potent mix of technology, world-class instruction and mass access have changed forever our understanding of the educational experience (Alhazzani, 2020). MOOCs, however, have to lead to new thinking about the role and application of micro-credentials and short courses of all descriptions and advanced the acceptance of the idea that tertiary education is

70

5 Access and Affordability

not a stratified and hierarchical ladder with short vocational courses at the bottom leading upward to the PhD at the apex. Instead, the process of education should be seen more as an ‘ecosystem’ through which students can enter and exit without penalty and ‘collect’ qualifications as they come and go depending on their life circumstances (Parker et al. 2018). At the same time, micro-credentials have forced a reckoning among education bureaucrats as to just what constitutes a ‘qualification’. Ultimately, the embedding of such courses in higher education has the potential to reduce costs to students while allowing them to acquire a curated qualification and learning experience that is specific to their circumstances, ambitions, and ability. Essentially the argument is this: technological disruption is coming, and it has been accelerated by COVID-19. Micro-credentials and other forms of informal learning are on the cusp of seeing the unbundling of traditional degrees–in how they are constructed, taught, accredited and recognised by employers. Unbundled degrees have the potential to put downward pressure on costs to students, while the costs of traditional degrees continue to track inexorably upward. This has particular implications for disadvantaged and mature age students, who need to upskill and reskill throughout their working lives but who are simultaneously sensitive to price. In essence, micro-credentials can be a means for financially disadvantaged and mature age students to access for-credit courses and better job prospects–but only if there are appropriate supports to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to succeed. Furthermore, with consumer expectations that short courses and microcredentials are priced lower than individual subjects in a degree, there are important financial benefits that will further drive the acceptance and adoption of these new learning paradigms.

5.5 Should Online Learning Be Cheaper Than On-Campus? Earlier in this chapter we discussed the cost advantages of embedding microcredentials into for-credit programs, but we also need to consider whether tuition fees for online courses should be less than those for on-campus students. Coronavirus, we will all agree, has had a pervasive and profound impact on higher education–most particularly in relation to online learning. Institutions across the globe, even the most recalcitrant, pivoted on a sixpence to be able to deliver online learning to all their students in a matter of weeks. What that has done is open up, again, the question of whether online classes should be cheaper than on-campus. In Australia, as elsewhere, online students pay exactly the same fee whether they are online or in person. While acknowledging that there are examples of online-only universities and credit-bearing programs–including those delivered on MOOC platforms such as Coursera and edX–such as the University of Phoenix, that charge substantially less, for the purposes of this argument we will

5.5 Should Online Learning Be Cheaper Than On-Campus?

71

consider only online delivery of a course from the same institutions as those that physically go to class. As universities across the globe have moved their classes online during COVID19, there has been growing pressure from students to decrease fees. One survey found that 79% of students said that wholly online or hybrid classes should be cheaper than on-campus teaching (Patch, 2020). The argument for lower fees for online learning is this: students do not have access to the same infrastructure and facilities, such as libraries and so on. Neither do they have the same opportunity for cohort interaction and networking–although most online platforms do encourage inter-student cooperation via chat rooms and the like. The flip side of lowering fees for online courses is that students are earning the same degree, and that the costs of teaching and learning are still the most significant part of the delivery. Certainly, there is an argument that good online learning will encompass many of the same elements as on-campus learning and will cost a similar amount to the institution, so there is no justification for a lower price. But the full embrace of online learning threatens the exclusivity of degrees conferred by elite institutions (and hence the price of those degrees), could render teaching faculty redundant over time and could threaten the very existence of some less-elite campuses and even institutions. The question is: is this a bad thing? At the same time, we must consider the role of micro-credentials and their role as a cost-effective solution to improving access and equity to learners, and how they must be recognised by institutions and employers. Beverley Oliver (2019) has noted that “the current price of formal and non-formal learning is too high for many learners who already have financial commitments, possibly including a debt from a first degree. Because a micro-credential is a new and unknown unit of currency, the cost will be a strong consideration for the learner. Very low prices, even free, MOOC microcredentials have not deterred learners from signing up, although there is evidence that learners do not necessarily commit to or complete free micro-credentials.” This would point to balancing cost and access as an essential element toward achieving acceptance of online and micro-courses. As Oliver points out the costs of micro-credentials need to be balanced over the short and longer terms with the benefits they confer (Oliver, 2019). This is not an easy equation. “The ‘try before you buy’ aspects of micro-credentials are very attractive, as long as the quality experienced in the formal qualification matches or exceeds that provided in the micro-credential. Securing endorsements from one or more educational providers that a micro-credential earns the successful learner admission to or credit towards a qualification builds the perception of value, even if the learner has no immediate plan to take up that offer” (Oliver, 2019).

5.6 Entry into University is Fundamentally Unfair “How’s this for a personal essay?” In the 2001 movie Legally Blonde, protagonist Elle Woods applies to Harvard Law School with a spirited song and dance routine.

72

5 Access and Affordability

The nonplussed admissions team is finally won over when she refers to her passion for love and asks whether “lawyers feel love too?” It raises the question–albeit in a fanciful, Hollywood format–about what should govern the determination as to whether an aspiring student should be admitted to higher education, and then, which institution and which course to study? Some universities and some courses are more selective than others. Of the 42,750 applicants to Harvard, just 2,024 were offered a place in 2019–an acceptance rate of 4.7% (College Simply). Most universities select students based on ‘merit’–particularly prior academic achievements. But increasingly, they have looked to include information that points to the more ‘holistic’ person, such as admission essays, extracurricular activities, interviews and letters of recommendation. As Gavin Moodie, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Toronto, Canada and RMIT University, pointed out to the authors: All these selection methods have three familiar limitations or flaws: validity, bias, and reliability. While many believe that academic attainment, diversity of intake and/or breadth of character are relevant criteria for entry to university, many others disagree. Some argue that universities should select not on past attainment but on potential to benefit from the proposed study. Many vigorously contest that student diversity is a relevant criterion for the quality of a university education. And some challenge the relevance of character or activities which are by definition beyond the curriculum (Moodie, 2020).

Indeed, all these selection criteria are biased by socioeconomic status, thereby inherently disadvantaging people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and people of colour. In other words, if even the most ‘objective’ selection tests are not entirely trustworthy, does this mean that a number of students who should have been selected miss out? These issues are complicated by the fact that admission practices are different across the globe. In the USA, students generally struggle through with SAT scores from school achievement and grade point averages, letters of recommendations from teachers and a personal essay. Thrown in the mix may be the requirement to meet personal qualities such as individual excellence and character (Warikoo, 2018). As part of a sting operation in the USA–Operation Varsity Blues–high-profile and wealthy parents ended up on charges of criminal conspiracy followed by their attempts to rig the admissions processes in a number of bribes offered to influence undergraduate admissions decisions in US elite Ivy League universities. The fraud involved bribes to exam administrations and on entrance, exams and the creation of forged sports credentials (Pascus, 2019). In Austria, Switzerland and Belgium, a student can enrol in any discipline subject field, for free, at a public university once they have passed the end of secondary school Matura exam. Brazilian students undertake a week- long exam called the Vestibular. Chinese students undertake the National College Entrance Exam. In Germany, the exam is called the Abitur, and in Greece, they sit the Panhellenic Examinations University entrance examinations. School leavers in Australia apply for undergraduate programs at university through a tool called the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR). ATAR maps a student’s aggregate scores to the national averages. Our best explanation on how this works is the following mathematical equation: Aggregate = S(1) + S(2) + (10% × S3), where S1 is the student’s English scaled

5.6 Entry into University is Fundamentally Unfair

73

study score, S2 is the sum of the student’s three best scaled study scores excluding English and S3 is the sum of their next best two study scores. The percentile score given to a student leaving school is a rank of a particular student relative to peers on completion of secondary school. Nothing in ATAR–or most of the other national school-leaving assessments–is able to capture the full capabilities of a student. The ATAR creates a single point in time and is a skewed view of a student’s ‘achievements’ in systems that are susceptible to being gamed. Yet, in the final years of secondary school in Australia, significant numbers of students (and some of their parents) consume themselves with the all-important single score of ATAR, despite widespread criticism of the system. Australia may be a special case. As O’Connell, Milligan and Bentley (2019) state: “No other educational jurisdiction in the world seeks to rank school-leaving candidates according to a single numerical scale drawn from the complex mix of subjects and certificates on the basis of statistical weighting and moderation” (O’Connell et al. 2019). The ATAR should be replaced–or at least be relegated to second place. At one Australian university, the Australian National University (ANU), ATAR is just one application criteria, with consideration of a student’s all round character including community engagement and leadership, sport or volunteering activities and parttime work. The philosophy behind the change is to “educate students who have the capacity and ambition to succeed” (Australian National University, 2018). However, even the more holistic approaches to admission still require a value judgement to be made as to existing capabilities, achievements or even whether a student is passionate about a particular course of study. From an equity perspective, exhaustive extensive application requirements disadvantage low-socio-economic students who do not have the same level of support or resources to apply as their wealthier counterparts (Duggan, 2018). Participation in extensive co-curricular activities (such as volunteering and sport) are more likely to be the pursuit of those with the means to participate in them. In her influential analysis of admission requirements in the UK and the USA, Natasha Warikoo (2018) concludes that the only option to achieve diversity in elite education institutions (such as Oxbridge or the Ivy League) is for an admissions lottery for selection. She argues that ultimately even merit considerations will reproduce inequality and still focus on admitting “the best of the best” (Warikoo, 2018). So, what should happen instead? Our radical idea is to create an admissions system that judges every single student applying to university on their own merit. Admission must be based on more than a single number. It must be based on an individual learner, whoever they are, whatever their background, wherever they come from. People start to make decisions about university from an early age (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018), with wealth and access to high-quality schooling being a fundamental determinant of not just attendance at university but the type of institution attended. Privilege begets privilege. In the simplest of terms: wealth buys high-quality schooling, which provides access to high quality higher education, which in turn opens doors to later economic success (Jerrim et al., 2015). Graduation from an elite university sends a signal to employers– rightly or wrongly–about the quality of the graduate. While elite universities across

74

5 Access and Affordability

the world–from Harvard to Cambridge to ANU–are constantly striving to find ways to build diversity into their student cohort, it is still fundamentally true that your family background will determine the university you choose. As Jerrim et al. (2015) and others have demonstrated, even with the same academic performance in high school, students from low SES backgrounds are less likely to attend prestigious universities. “We have found that although academic achievement in high school is an important reason why high SES groups dominate enrolment at elite colleges, substantial direct effects of family background nevertheless remain. This holds true across Australia, England and the United States, with very similar magnitudes of socioeconomic inequality observed in each” (Jerrim et al., 2015). The research also found that as universities change the admissions landscape to be more inclusive of a more diverse range of students, “high SES students will adapt to the changing landscape of admissions and continue to gain disproportionate access to the most prestigious institutions” (Jerrim et al., 2015). A possible solution, as we will explore, is a lottery.

5.7 Selection into High-Demand Courses As sociologist Martin Trow observed in the seminal 1973 book Twentieth-Century Higher Education. Elite to Mass to Universal, selection into most university programs is neither particularly selective nor transparent, as discussed above. Ferdinand von Prondzynski (2011) and Áine Hyland (2011) have suggested that the fairest and simplest way to overcome implicit bias in admissions processes is a lottery. The argument is that almost all selection methods are flawed to some degree by factors of reliability, bias and validity. In other words, if even the most ‘objective’ selection tests are not entirely trustworthy, which means that a number of students who should have been selected miss out, and a number who shouldn’t have been selected get a place. Quite simply, a lottery would remove bias from selection decisions. In a paper for the Irish government, Hyland (2011) suggested a system, in which universities set realistic minimum entry requirements for each course and all students who satisfied these requirements would be eligible for random selection through a lottery system. Such a selection process would save applicants and institutions much time, effort and money and would also cut the delay between the publication of school assessment results and selection decisions. It could be argued that selecting students by lottery is, quite simply, more honest. It challenges the notion of meritocracy in democratic capitalist societies. Similar theories have been mooted for research funding grants (Trounson, 2015).

5.8 The Very High Cost of Dropping Out

75

5.8 The Very High Cost of Dropping Out Each year in Australia, of the 300,000 or so Bachelor degree students who will enrol (Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills and Employment 2018), more than 50,000 will drop out (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018). There are substantial financial and opportunity costs for individuals who start and don’t complete a degree. According to the Grattan Institute, on average, students pay AUD$12,000 for their incomplete course (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018) and they miss out on the opportunities and higher lifetime earnings that graduates can earn compared to non-graduates. There are strong and established correlations between attrition, socioeconomic status, part-time study and online study (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018). According to the Grattan Institute, students who enrol in a 50% load or less have “only about a 50% chance of completing their course in eight years. Students who enrol full-time have about an 80% chance” (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018). Further, school results are important. Students with ATARs below 60 are twice as likely to drop out of university as otherwise similar students with ATARs above 90 (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018). Online students are more likely to drop out than on-campus students (Bawa, 2016). Given the fact that low socioeconomic students, particularly mature age students, are likely to cover one or more of these risk factors of dropping out, governments and universities must find ways to reward and acknowledge shorter periods of study that can then be assembled into the building blocks of a larger qualification. One radical idea is that all students–especially those from atrisk groups–should be alerted to the very real costs, and risks, of dropping out. This is particularly the case for those intending on part-time and online study. It is also essential that universities use the data they hold to identify at-risk students early, work with them one-on-one to identify either ways to succeed in the course they have chosen via additional academic and psychosocial support or to find pathways to other programs and qualifications which might be more suitable in the present circumstances (at the least possible cost), while accepting that not all students make the best possible decisions due to a raft of factors, including lack of transparent information, poor advice, poor understanding of tertiary study and so on.

5.9 One Size Does not Fit All: Diversity Matters Different students need different approaches. Without overstating it, this book is about the fact that education systems are mostly designed with the institution–not the student–in mind. Different learning styles, academic backgrounds, socioeconomic status and personal beliefs and expectations all play an important role in the type of institution a student studies at–when they have a choice. All too often, in Australia at least, there is no choice. The problem with massified education systems is that the individual is subsumed in the majority. And the problem in countries

76

5 Access and Affordability

like Australia is that there are very few options outside the massified, comprehensive university. Former University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis has described the Australian system as one university with 220 campuses. (Davis, 2012). Of the 1,083,074 students enrolled on Australian campuses in 2017, 92% were in public universities (Australian Government. Tertiary Education Quality & Standards Agency, 2019). Australia also has a large number of non-higher education profit and not-forprofit providers (Australian Government. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency). In 2017, these colleges had a total of 131,867 students (86,072 students enrolled in for-profit institutions and 45,795 students enrolled in not-for-profit institutions) (Australian Government. Tertiary Education Quality & Standards Agency, 2019, p12)–which in itself is an extraordinary number because all the current policy settings around government funding and access to student loans are focused on the big public universities. The fact that in 2017 over 130,000, and today undoubtedly more, students chose to go to a non-university provider is itself a notable fact. Specialisation has all but been abandoned–which explains, in part, why non-university providers attract the number of students they do despite policy settings pressing in the other direction. On the upside, the Australian higher education sector has not been subject to wild and poorly regulated privatisation policies, as happening in its vocational sector and which is all too apparent in the USA. In Australia and the UK, during the 1980s there was a move away from a third tier of education–one that married high-level vocational skills with advanced tertiary education practices. In Australia, colleges of advanced education were merged into universities or simply changed their name. In the UK, polytechnics came and went with little fanfare. Meanwhile in Germany, the Fachhochschulen—high-quality technical universities–were established and are today seen globally as central to the country’s advanced engineering sector and economic health. Canada has a tier of tertiary colleges that specialise in vocational diplomas. As British academic Alison Wolf (2017) has pointed out: “The Dutch haven’t created a university since 1976. Instead. they expanded their respected “higher professional education” system, taught in Hogescholen which are close to the vision once held for polytechnics. By contrast, since 1976 in the United Kingdom, we have created another 89 universities (although a few have since merged), and not a single major alternative institution” (Wolf, 2017). The purpose of education and training is to not only prepare people, both young and old, for useful, productive and ongoing engagement with the labour market but to instil notions of active and responsible citizenship. As we have discussed many times in this book, school leavers and workers of all ages need to be more than just employable. They need to be adaptable, flexible and highly engaged in the notion of lifelong learning and multiple jobs and careers. To not do so would be economic suicide. There has been growing frustration in recent years of the policy and funding preference for higher education over vocational education and the role ATAR–and its equivalent in various countries–plays in this. For years, Australia and other countries have struggled to put in place meaningful pathways between vocational and higher education. And for years too many students who were not academically ready for university enrolled anyway, compelled by a combination of status seeking, economic

5.9 One Size Does not Fit All: Diversity Matters

77

rationalism and blind hope. As Alison Wolf wrote well over a decade ago about the circumstances in the United Kingdom: For well over 20 years, and at an ever-accelerating rate, further and adult education have been subjected to comprehensive and unprecedented levels of centralised planning, and to sudden and repeated changes. Detailed, expensive and overlapping bureaucratic control has been imposed on all aspects of people’s work, and there has been cavalier destruction of large parts of the sector’s historic and popular provision. Current arrangements undermine innovation and make it completely pointless for ‘providers’–the government’s favoured term–to undertake any sort of long-term thinking (Wolf, 2009).

KPMG has called for a tertiary education sector that is “no longer divided regulated and funded across a binary divide” (Parker, et al., 2018) which would, ultimately, improve fairness, innovation and efficiency within the post-secondary system. Indeed, to inform a trajectory towards a unified tertiary education sector, understanding data, trends and nuance is important. Some countries are better at nationally consistent and transparent data collection arrangements than others. Australia, currently, is not one of the good ones. Big data integration and analysis–across schooling, tertiary education and training, and the labour market–would provide insights into the exercise of individual choice over time. It would help policymakers to understand why students begin education and training courses and why, too often, they decide to drop out. It would help ensure that spending on education gets the biggest bang for its buck. It will help us to prepare senior secondary students for their futures by getting the public policy settings right.

5.9.1 Women, Outcomes and Stubborn Inequality It is impossible to write a chapter about equality in higher education without raising the issue of women–and men. Women enrol in higher education at far higher rates than men and are far less likely to drop out. But their long-term graduate outcomes are, at a macro level, poorer. They have to contend with the gender pay gap, interrupted careers and fewer opportunities to enter leadership positions. The question is why? In Australia, female enrolments passed the 50% mark in 1987 and now make up 55.5% (Australian Government. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 2000). It is a trend that has been emulated across western democracies (Bhandari, 2017). But besides these gains in enrolments and subsequent graduations, a fundamental unfairness remains. While women enter higher education at a greater rate than men, value it more highly and see it as a strategy for economic security, men still outperform women after they graduate in terms of both salary and seniority (Australian Government. Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 2020). Given the under-representation of men in higher education in general and the fact they make up the majority of students in just a small number of disciplines (Larkins, 2018)–IT and engineering–the issue of whether men should be considered an equity group (Ramsay, 2015) has been raised many times over the years. Women in nontraditional disciplines such as STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths)

78

5 Access and Affordability

are officially deemed an equity group in Australia (Ramsay, 2015). However, men are not, despite their under-representation in every other discipline. Of course, the drivers behind the dramatic expansion of women’s attendance in higher education are a complex interplay of social, cultural and economic factors. A potted history of the past five decades would point to the rise in feminism and its attendant changes in attitudes about women’s role in the home. It would include the contraceptive pill, which reduced the number of children women had while increasing the age at which they had them. It would also address advances in technology which, to a degree, freed women from the drudgery of manual housework. And it would include structural changes in the economy in the 1980s which saw a rapid decline in the number and types of unskilled jobs available to women. Secretaries and stenographers became occupations of a bygone era while nursing and teaching were professionalised, requiring degrees as entry-level qualifications. A recent study found the combination of reading proficiency at 15 years old and social attitudes towards women attending universities could predict enrolment patterns for men and women five years later (Stoet & Geary, 2020). Looking at 447,000 students across 18 OECD countries, the researchers confirm the under-representation of men in university courses began in the 1990s and–while the trend was frequently raised in policy discussions–there “is no comprehensive explanation as to why the underrepresentation of men is more severe in some countries than others” (Stoet & Geary, 2020). The answer they found lay in two unrelated but fundamental areas: secular changes in attitudes toward women’s education, and boys’ disadvantages in reading comprehension while still at school. So that means that countries with less discriminatory attitudes to girls going to university and in which girls performed well in reading while still at school had far higher female enrolments than the countries with the opposite dynamics at play (Stoet & Geary, 2020). Yet, women remain worse off (OECD Higher Education Programme 2013). In Australia, a 2019 Grattan Institute report found female university graduates are expected to earn 27% less than men– AUD$750,000–over their career (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2019). The gender pay gap is down slightly from 30% a decade earlier. So herein lies the dilemma: a stubborn gender pay gap and men moving up the career ladder more steeply than women, even in female-dominated sectors such as health care and education (Australian Government. Workplace Gender Equality Agency 2018). Why is it that women fail to capitalise on their higher-level educational attainment relative to men? The reasons are complex but solvable. One includes self-selecting segregation (half of all female commencements each year are in feminised, lower-paid sectors such as teaching, nursing, childcare and humanities) while men outnumber women in two fields only: engineering and IT. Then there is the issue of built-in bias as to how certain careers are valued (childcare pays poorly but construction well); social expectations around child rearing; recruitment practices and self-perpetuating corporate cultures to name a new. As COVID-19 has laid bare, there is a strong undercurrent in our society of devaluing “women’s” work even though that work is essential to the successful running of an economy (Craig, 2020). It is a bitter pill to swallow.

5.9 One Size Does not Fit All: Diversity Matters

79

There is also the fact that more women leave full-time work to bring up children. While the number of women staying in the workforce has increased in recent years thanks to a universal paid-parental leave scheme, at the age of 35, 80% of men are engaged in the workforce full-time compared to only 40% of women. The cost of childcare and the tax and transfer system is discriminatory in that it assumes a male breadwinner with a female unpaid carer, cleaner and part-time worker. As the Grattan Institute has shown, it is uneconomic for married women with children to work on the fourth and fifth day of a week (Wood et al. 2020). The Australian government’s proposed changes to tuition fee subsidies (with STEM courses costing less than most in the humanities) have attracted media attention (Hill, 2020) in part because they look set to benefit men while negatively impacting women. Whether this was an intentional form of policy bias to improve higher education participation among men is unlikely. However, it brings us back to the question of whether men should be considered an equity group. The answer for the time being at least is a robust no. Men are not being squeezed out of university places just because there are more women—they are making choices based on the opportunities available to them. And men have, by and large, access to more well-paying career paths that don’t require a university degree. Trades, for example, continue to be male dominated (KPMG, 2018) and–maybe because of the gendered way in which our society values work–can be well-rewarded, unlike similar occupations for women (Norton, 2019).

References Alhazzani, N. (2020). MOOC’s impact on higher education. Social Sciences and Humanities Open 2(1). Anderson, G. (2020). Feeling short-changed. Inside Higher Ed. 13 April. Australian Government. (2018). Department of education, skills and employment. Section 1 Commencing students. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/ 53015 Australian Government. (2000). Department of education, training and youth affairs. Higher Education Students, Time Series Tables. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://docs.education.gov. au/system/files/doc/other/time_series_data_1949_-_2000.pdf Australian Government. (2020). Workplace gender equality agency. National Gender Pay Gap Remains Stable. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.wgea.gov.au/newsroom/ media-releases/national-gender-pay-gap-remains-stable-0 Australian Government. (2019). Tertiary education quality and standards agency. Guidance Note: Nested Courses of Study. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latestnews/publications/guidance-note-nested-courses-study Australian Government. (2020). Tertiary education quality and standards agency. Search the National Register. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/national-reg ister Australian Government, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2019). Statistics report on TESQA registered higher education providers. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistics-report-2019.pdf?v=1572233269

80

5 Access and Affordability

Australian Government, Workplace Gender Equality Agency. (2018). About workplace gender equality. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.wgea.gov.au/topics/about-workplacegender-equality Australian Government. (2018). Workplace gender equality agency. The gender pay gap. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.wgea.gov.au/topics/the-gender-pay-gap Australian National University. (2018). ANU announces major changes to student admissions for 2020. Australian National University. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.anu.edu. au/news/all-news/anu-announces-major-changes-to-student-admissions-for-2020 Barr, N., Chapman, B., Dearden, L., & Dynarski, S. (2019). The US college loans system: Lessons from Australia and England. Economics of Education Review, 71, 32–48. Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions–a literature review. SAGE Open, 1–11. Bhandari, R. (2017). Women on the move: The gender dimensions of academic mobility. Institute of International Education. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.iie.org/Researchand-Insights/Publications/Women-on-the-Move-The-Gender-Dimensions-of-Academic-Mob ility#:%7E:text=Women%20now%20make%20up%20the,number%20women%20in%2057% 20countries.&text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20earning,44%20percent Bialik, K., & Fry, R. (2019). Millennial life: How young adulthood today compares with prior generations. Pew Research Centre, 14 February 2019. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-todaycompares-with-prior-generations/ Calderon, A. (2018). Massification of higher education revisited [Presentation]. RMIT University. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.academia.edu/36975860/Massification_of_h igher_education_revisited CEDA. (2018). How Unequal? Insights on Inequality. CEDA. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.ceda.com.au/CEDA/media/General/Publication/PDFs/CEDA-How-unequalInsights-on-inequality-April-2018-FINAL_WEB.pdf Chapman, B. (2001). Australian higher education financing: Issues for reform. The Australian Economic Review, 34(2), 195–204. Chapman, B. (2019). Income-contingent loans evangelist eyes Asia and South America. Times Higher Education. 9 July. College Simply. (2020). Harvard admission requirements, College Simply, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020 from https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/massachusetts/harvard-univer sity/admission/ Craig, L. (2020). COVID-19 has laid bare how much we value women’s work, and how little we pay for it. The Conversation. 21 April. Davis, G. (2012). The Australian idea of a university. Meanjin. Retrieved 27 July, 2021 from https:// meanjin.com.au/essays/the-australian-idea-of-a-university/ Deutsche Bank. (2020). New report from Deutsche bank technology strategist apjit walia reveals America’s racial gap in big tech. Deutsche Bank. 8 September 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.db.com/newsroom_news/2020/new-report-from-deutsche-bank-res earch-analyst-apjit-walia-reveals-america-s-racial-gap-in-big-tech-en-11668.htm Duggan, S. (2018). ANU’s new entrance criteria won’t do much to improve equity. The Conversation. 6 June 2018. FRED Economic Data. (2020). Student loans owned and securitized, Outstanding. FRED Economic Data. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLOAS Hare, J. (2016). Professor Alison Wolf decries universities’ open door policy. The Australian. 1 June. Hill, S. (2020). University fee changes could see young women saddled with more debt for decades to come. Women’s Agenda. 7 July. Hill, K., Hoffman, D., & Rex, T. (2005). The value of higher education: Individual and societal benefits.Arizona State University’s Productivity and Prosperity Report. Retrieved December

References

81

12, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240343282_The_Value_of_Higher_ Education_Individual_and_Societal_Benefits Hyland, A. (2011). Entry to higher education in Ireland in the 21st Century [Discussion paper]. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http:// www.transition.ie/files/Entry_to_Higher_Education_in_Ireland_in_the_21st_Century%20.pdf Ingraham, C. (2019). 7 Ways $1.6 trillion in student loan debt affects the U.S. economy. The Washington Post. 26 June. Jaschik, S. (2019). US News Adjusts Formula. Inside Higher Ed. 9 September. Jerrim, J., Chmielewski, A. K., & Parker, P. (2015). Socioeconomic inequality in access to highstatus colleges: A cross-country comparison. Research into Social Stratification and Mobility, 43, 20–32. KPMG. (2018). Is tertiary education worth it?. KPMG. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/is-tertiary-education-worth-it.pdf Lamb, S., & Huo, S. (2017). Counting the costs of lost opportunity in Australian education. Mitchell Institute Report No. 2. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/33523/1/Cou nting-the-costs-of-lost-opportunity-in-Australian-education.pdf Larkins, F. P. (2018). Male students remain underrepresented in Australian universities. Should we be concerned?. The University of Melbourne. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/lh-martin-institute/insights/gender-enrolment-trends-flarkins#: ~:text=Males%20are%20dominant%20in%20only,This%20is%20the%20norm%20globally Moodie, G. (2020). Why is the Australian government letting universities suffer?. The Conversation. 19 May. Norton, A. (2019). If you have a low ATAR you could earn more doing a VET course than a uni degree–if you’re a man. The Conversation. 12 August. Norton, A., & Cherastidtham, I. (2018). Dropping out: The benefits and costs of trying university. The Grattan Institute. Report no. 2018–07. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/ wp-content/uploads/2018/04/904-dropping-out-the-benefits-and-costs-of-trying-university.pdf Norton, A., & Cherastidtham, I. (2019). Risks and rewards: When is vocational education a good alternative to higher education?. Grattan Institute report no. 2019–06. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/report/risks-and-rewards-when-is-vocational-education-agood-alternative-to-higher-education/ O’Connell, M., Milligan, S., & Bentley, T. (2019). Beyond ATAR: A proposal for change. Koshland Innovation Fund, Melbourne, Victoria. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.all-lea rning.org.au/sites/default/files/beyond_atar_proposal_for_change_all_3.pdf OECD Higher Education Programme (IHME). (2013). What it means for higher education: Closing the gender gap. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from http://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/02% 20June%20-%20closing%20the%20gender%20gap%20What%20it%20means%20for%20h igher%20education.pdf Oliver, B. (2019). Making micro-credentials work for learners, employers and providers. Deakin University. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://dteach.deakin.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/ sites/103/2019/08/Making-micro-credentials-work-Oliver-Deakin-2019-full-report.pdf Ovide, S. (2020). A capitalist fix to the digital divide. The New York Times. 22 September. Parker, S., Dempster, A., & Warburton, M. (2018). Reimagining tertiary education: From binary system to ecosystem. KPMG Australia. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://home.kpmg/ content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/reimagining-tertiary-education.pdf Pascus, B. (2019). Every charge and accusation facing the 33 parents in the college admissions scandal, CBS News. 3 June. Patch, W. (2020). Student voices–the path to fall 2020, NICHE. 20 May 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.niche.com/about/enrollment-insights/student-voices-thepath-to-fall-2020/ Picchi, A. (2018). Millennials are much poorer than their parents. CBS News. 30 November.

82

5 Access and Affordability

Raciti, M., Dale, J., & Tham, A. (2020). Low SES students and the covid crossroads: Persist with digital resource deficiency or risk public transport exposure, NCSEHE. 27 May 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/low-ses-students-covid-public-transport/ Ramsay, E. (2015). There are fewer males at university, so should they be an equity group?. The Conversation. 7 September. Reardon, S. F. (2011).The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations, Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/def ault/files/reardon%20whither%20opportunity%20-%20chapter%205.pdf Stoet, G., Geary, D. C. (2020). Gender differences in the pathways to higher education. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.pnas.org/content/117/25/14073 Stuff. (2018). What do most Kiwis owe on their student loan? Stuff. 18 June. Retrieved December 12, 2020. Trounson, A. (2015). Medical researchers spend 600 years filing grant applications. The Australian. 20 January, 2015. Trow, M. (2010). Twentieth-century higher education: Elite to mass to universal. Johns Hopkins University Press. United Kingdom Parliament. House of Commons Library. (2020). Student loan statistics [Research briefing]. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/researchbriefings/sn01079/#:~:text=The%20average%20debt%20among%20the,will%20repay%20t hem%20in%20full Von Prondzynski, F. (2011). University entry in Ireland: Decided by lottery? A University Blog. 7 September 2011. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://universitydiary.wordpress.com/ 2011/09/07/university-entry-in-ireland-decided-by-lottery/ Warikoo, N. (2018). What meritocracy means to its winners: Admissions, race, and inequality at elite universities in the United States and Britain,. Journal of Social Science, 7(1), 131. West, T. (2018). Lowering the HELP repayment threshold is an easy target, but not one we should aim for. The Conversation. 18 April. Wolf, A. (2009). An adult approach to further education. Institute of Economic Affairs. Wolf, A. (2017). Degrees of failure: Why it’s time to reconsider how we run our universities. Prospect Magazine. 14 July. Wood, D., Griffiths, K., & Emslie, O. (2020). Cheaper childcare: A practical plan to boost female workforce participation. The Grattan Institute. Report no. 2020–11. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/report/cheaper-childcare/ World Bank (Education). (2020). The covid-19 crisis response: Supporting tertiary education for continuity, adaptation, and innovation. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://openknowl edge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34571

Chapter 6

Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education

Abstract In this chapter, we consider the meaning of globalisation and internationalisation in higher education, and their dual effect on the development of universities in the twenty-first century. Already somewhat problematic in a political and educational sense, the global pandemic turned these problems into financial, humanitarian, conceptual and educational emergencies. The fantasy of the safe and frictionless movement of goods and citizens fell apart under the pressure of closed borders and explosive infections. The fact that public funding had been cut over many years from universities across the world, which led to reliance on international student fees to support research activities and cross-subsidise domestic students, meant that the sudden loss of international students was financially damaging to those institutions most reliant on overseas tuition revenue. Compounding the financial impacts were complex psychosocial factors such as international students’ reluctance to pay full fees for online education and a new, COVID-19-induced fear of travelling overseas for study purposes. Keywords Globalisation · Internationalisation · International Students · Student Safety · Social Good

6.1 Globalisation and Internationalisation Globalisation, or the integration of the world economy, and internationalisation, or the response to this phenomenon, have been dominating university thinking for several decades now. From its origins in scholarship programs such as Australia’s Colombo Plan, in recent years internationalisation has morphed into being mostly directed to the development of branded campuses in foreign countries, encouraging the movement of students around the world, and the search for foreign students paying large fees. But it is a contested field. Consider the following five myths of internationalisation: • Myth one: Foreign students as agents of internationalisation–“more foreign students on campus will produce more internationalised institutional culture and curriculum”. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_6

83

84

6 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education

• Myth two: International reputation as a proxy for quality–“the more international a university is (…) the better its reputation”. • Myth three: International institutional agreements–“the greater number of international agreements or network memberships a university has, the more prestigious and attractive it is”. • Myth four: International accreditation–“the more international accreditation stars an institution has, the more internationalised it is and ergo the better it is”. • Myth five: Global branding–“an international marketing scheme is the equivalent of an internationalisation plan” (Knight, 2008). Brandenburg and De Wit (2010) describe the instrumentalisation of the process: Gradually, the why and what have been taken over by the how and instruments of internationalisation have become the main objective: more exchange, more degree mobility, and more recruitment.

In 2013, Thomas Docherty noted: A current danger is that, through endlessly rehearsed but unargued assertion, the sector will find itself endorsing uncritically that which it should critique. Globalisation may establish normative–but problematic–economic practices, and we may find ourselves simply conforming to those norms and ignoring the attendant problems of globalisation and its occasional consequence of disengagement from community or the modern commons (Docherty, 2013).

The 2020 global pandemic turned grumbling issues into financial, humanitarian, conceptual and educational emergencies. The shutdown of international travel sent markets into turmoil, as it became clear that much of the West had outsourced the production of medical supplies, and this proved hard to manage. International students were unable to work to support themselves in their host countries and many had to return home. In a matter of weeks, the idea of globalisation as a boon to mankind exploded. Complex international supply chains seemed dangerous, the free movement of people across the globe–or even across a city–seemed threatening, and the use of international students as cash cows seemed like folly. As it became the epicentre of COVID-19 infections in 2020, the USA, which had been fixated on keeping intruders out with the former President’s border wall, found that by July 2020 its citizens were barred from entry in 33 countries including, ironically, Mexico (Sternlicht, 2020). As the pandemic accelerated, borders snapped shut with little warning. Open borders and the free circulation of citizens, goods, jobs and students suddenly appeared intrinsically dangerous: European nations closed their borders to other EU member states, and it has been suggested that some countries are using COVID-19 as a way to deter refugees. In Australia, states closed their borders, in effect undoing a century of Federation and causing chaos in border communities. Airlines offered few flights, and it became difficult to get a seat as airlines tried to keep flights profitable and also to comply with the limit for passengers (Visontay, 2020). Quarantine was required for any Australian returning to the country, limiting the number of citizens being repatriated to what the ramshackle quarantine system could handle, traditional

6.1 Globalisation and Internationalisation

85

freestanding quarantine facilities having mostly been closed in the later years of the twentieth century. In a literal sense, then, globalisation ground to a halt in 2020. The fantasy of the safe and frictionless movement of goods and citizens for pleasure, study, work and consumption disappeared in a matter of weeks. The anti-immigration and populist projects of Brexit in the UK, and the Trumpian concept of “America First” in the USA (Salam, 2016), were suddenly multiplied by a larger set of problems involving hard national borders. International students across the world were instructed to go home or left without work as the casual job market collapsed and they found themselves excluded from support schemes. COVID-19 effectively revealed internationalisation as an early twenty-first century neoliberal construct. The airlines, border requirements, supply chains, financial transactions that we had collectively been relying on were seen to be precarious, dependent on an idea of our lives as bulletproof and independent of the traditional scourges of pestilence and populism. A measure of the problems of unchecked globalisation and reflex internationalisation is that: The large market-oriented university systems in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are particularly vulnerable, as they have raised tuition fees and borrowed heavily to invest in things such as sporting facilities and accommodation to attract and house students. That has been underwritten by a belief in continued growth in the number of international students—currently more than 5m worldwide—who typically pay higher fees than their domestic counterparts (Jack and Smyth, 2020).

In Australia, international student fees have been allowed to prop up “changes to funding policy [which] meant that the Commonwealth Government is becoming more interventionist while providing a decreasing share of all university revenue” (Norton and Cherastidtham, 2018). This is particularly the case, as Andrew Norton argues, in that funds from international students have allowed universities to protect the traditional teaching-research career that competitive research grants have undermined (Norton, 2020). The sudden drying up of the international student market in the wake of COVID-19 exposes the dangers of kicking the funding can down the road in this model.

6.2 Higher Education in the Time of COVID-19 How does Higher Education respond to this diabolical mix of circumstance and policy? An obvious emergency is the question of how to manage the financial crisis (Marshman and Larkins, 2020). Some of the fallout and possible responses have already been raised, including the undoing of multiple campuses, the shedding of relatively luxurious executive functions and the halting of capital works projects. The restructure of teaching over the past decades, in which casual staffing levels have nearly doubled over the last 25 years, has been driven by a tangled mess of issues, including enterprise agreements (which make it difficult to retrench or redeploy continuing staff), cost savings and risk avoidance (Ross and McKie, 2020). The

86

6 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education

drying up of international fee income has meant the retrenchment of “21,000 full time equivalent positions” in Australia including up to 7000 research staff and enormous numbers of casual teaching staff (the total estimated in 2018 at around 94,500 people) (Harris et al., 2020). As the bulk of university income is allocated on the basis of the number of full-time equivalent domestic students in Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs), and those students will need to be taught, more of that teaching will need to be undertaken by permanent staff than the 40 to 60% that has been the case for many years (Baré et al., 2020). The long-forecast pivot from traditional lecture-based teaching to online and blended delivery, as discussed in Chap. 3, seems made to order to address this situation. As has been argued in Chap. 3, the lecture-tutorial system was under severe stress at the start of the twenty-first century. A study of more than 2000 Canadian STEM classes found that “55% of STEM classroom interactions consisted mostly of conventional lecturing, a style that prior research has identified as among the least effective at teaching and engaging students” (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2018). In part because of the enormous size of lecture theatres, “just 18% [of classes] emphasised a student-centered style heavy on group work and discussions” (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2018). Active learning, flipped classrooms, digital learning and blended learning had all been advanced as remedies for the alienating effects of massive classes, but without whole of sector success. Some of the institutions most dedicated to the face-to-face learning experience, for example the residential, dormitory and frat-house orientated USA campuses, have begun to imagine postpandemic higher education as a better alternative to the previous approach.. Harvard University’s Bharat Anand suggests that the pandemic gives us a chance to move forward with a new vision, asking: What are the shortcomings of the residential experience and the advantages of the virtual one? Some of the latter are scalability (and no capacity constraints), interactivity (with a click), and many-to-many interactions (the defining hallmark of digital technologies). So how can we leverage these and other advantages to create a learning experience that won’t just be better than the spring, but different? ... The pandemic broke down organisational resistance to online learning; suddenly we had no choice. The folly will be if we treat the current situation as a nuisance or settle for merely improving the spring’s experience and forgo the opportunity to create an entirely new one (Anand, 2020).

In order then to deal with the mix of financial exigencies, the pivot to online learning and the apparent reluctance or inability of students to travel, universities have an obligation to devise a model that is less about the cash cow of international student fees, and more about equity, diversity, sustainability and safety.

6.3 Student Safety In terms of student safety, the COVID-19 pandemic has infection control at front of mind. Higher education has been described as one of the classic hot spots, along with hospitals, aged care facilities and meatpacking plants (Hubler & Hartocollis,

6.3 Student Safety

87

2020). This is perhaps especially the case for dormitory- and residence-based models of higher education, but young adult socialising, and crowded lecture theatres with inadequate “milling space” for entrance and egress are part of the problem. However, the international study experience is widely regarded as “a transformational process” for students, as Vangelis Tsiligkiris argues, developing cultural competencies and firing “personal, social economic and professional aspiration” (Tsiligiris,2020). The need for foreign students to quarantine when entering some countries adds psychological hazards to considerable expense. A large majority of students declared that they were willing to undergo quarantine, and also to start classes online if necessary (Ross, 2020) but are concerned about the level of support required if they are to survive, much less thrive. International travel arguably wreaks environmental havoc, and is very expensive, furthering social inequalities. It is a radical idea in higher education that that internationalisation should be considered a social good rather than a money-making venture. If higher education is to respond to these many disruptions, and to lean into the opportunities of the pandemic as Anand suggests, it must thoroughly reconceptualise internationalisation as what Tsiligkiris names a “global delivery model” (Anand, 2020). This should not be thought of as remote delivery of courses conceived of as face-to-face, in a suboptimal version of the travel experience, but as “hybrid transnational education”: well-designed online models facilitated and delivered by local educators in a partnership model, and with a view of the location of the student as an inherent and valuable part of the experience. Part of this value of this model is in its availability to a wider rang e of students, as the costs are so much reduced. It is also a less generic model, more tailored to the local environment, and therefore more likely to promote employability. Not least is its environmental superiority in not requiring huge amounts of international travel. In addition, the hybrid transnational university allows for equity and student employability to become key issues. The core knowledge will thus be embedded in and critiqued by local culture, and these critiques ought to feed back into the originating university. It should be possible to build a virtuous international circle of feedback and mutual learning, rather than to create a colonialising experience for students who are studying in their own country via a partnership model, or an elitist one for students able to afford to travel abroad to study. A more difficult safety issue that might also be somewhat defused by the hybrid transnational model concerns international sensitivity to various materials that might be problematic in different societies. These can range from the political, to the religious, to matters concerning LGBTQI issues (Lau,2020). This puts some distance between the problems of “censoring” subject matter on the one hand, and the difficulties raised by, for example, the Hong Kong National Security Law (June 2020), which means that people can be charged with crimes of subversion or terrorism regardless of their nationality or location (Gueorguiev, 2020). The limits of this law are unclear (Clarke, 2020), but it is clear enough that it would be difficult for Chinese students to be recorded engaging in Zoom discussions of politically sensitive topics in distancedelivered education (Gueorguiev, 2020). Universities will need to consider ways of ensuring both safety and free discussion in international classes, and in particular,

88

6 Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education

policies of default recording of classes–in place for student convenience in the West– should be avoided in offshore locations (Gueorguiev, 2020). This would be easier to design if the classes were embedded in local culture and taught by local instructors, rather than being beamed in. The “firewall” issue which affects a number of countries and makes it impossible for students to access some materials can also be negated by the hybrid transnational mode. A radical idea is, simply, “Universités sans Frontières”. If internationalisation is to succeed in higher education, it will need to square these many circles. Championing transnational hybrid learning as the default way of educating international students provides an ethical response to international exchange, climate change, student safety and equity. while also providing a much safer financial base for the home institutions. In a very real sense, it means embracing a new model of internationalisation, one which is not intended as a money-making venture. Obviously, universities in a cashstrapped age will need to consider the financial costs, but there is no reason the global endeavour cannot be seen as a necessary response to national and international need. Rather than mining global citizens for funds to make up the shortfall in operating budgets, universities must embrace a model which approaches international study as ways of addressing the global student experience, the climate emergency, pandemic safety and global equity.

References Anand, B. (2020). We can start by turning the residential-versus-remote comparison on its head and asking: What are the shortcomings of the residential experience and advantages of the virtual one?. The Boston Globe. June 8. Baré, E., Beard, J., & Tija, T. (2020). Does the extent of casualisation of the Australian academic workforce provide flexibility to beat the covid-19 hit?. 27 May 2020. LH Martin Institute, Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/lh-martin-institute/ insights/does-the-extent-of-casualisation-of-the-australian-academic-workforce-provide-flexib ility-to-beat-the-covid-19-hit Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2010). The end of internationalisation. International Higher Education. 62: Winter. Docherty, T. (2013). Globalisation and its discontents. Times Higher Education. January 17. Clarke, D. (2020). Hong Kong’s national security law: An assessment. China leadership monitor. July 13 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.prcleader.org/clarke European Commission. (2020). Temporary reintroduction of border control. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-andvisas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en Gueorguiev, D. D. (2020). How to teach China this fall. China File. August 20. Retrieved December 12, 2020. Harris, J., Smithers, K., & Spina, N. (2020). More than 70% of academics at some universities are casuals. They’re losing work and are cut out of jobkeeper. The Conversation. May 15. Hubler, S., & Hartocollis, A. (2020). How colleges became the new covid hot spots. The New York Times. September 11. Jack, A., & Smyth, J. (2020). Coronavirus: Universities face a harsh lesson. Financial Times. April 21.

References

89

Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil. The Changing World of internationalisation.. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers Lau, J. (2020). Foreign firewalls present challenge to global online learning. Times Higher Education. September 25. Marshman, I., & Larkins, F. (2020). COVID-19: what Australian universities can do to recover from the loss of international student fees. The Conversation. June 3. Norton, A. (2020). Why did universities become reliant on international students? Part 4: Trying to maintain a teaching-research academic workforce. June 5 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://andrewnorton.net.au/2020/06/05/why-did-universities-become-reliant-on-int ernational-students-part-4-trying-to-maintain-a-teaching-research-academic-workforce/ Norton, A., Cherastidtham, I. (2018). Mapping Australian higher education 2. Grattan institute report no. 2018–11, September 2018. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/ wp-content/uploads/2018/09/907-Mapping-Australian-higher-education-2018.pdf Ross, J. (2020) International students ‘warm’ to blended learning and quarantine. Times Higher Education. July 14. Ross, J., & McKie, A. (2020). Will covid kill off the teaching-research employment model? Times Higher Education. August 12. Salam, R. (2016). Why immigration pushed Britons to Brexit. Slate. June 24. Scientist. (2020). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/2020-05/apo-nid303771.pdf Sternlicht, A. (2020). These 33 countries have banned U.S. travelers. Forbes. July 20. Tsiligkiris, V. (2020). Towards a global delivery model for international higher education. University World News. August 21. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (2018). Lesson learned? Massive study finds lectures still dominate STEM ed. Public release, 29 March 2018. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.eur ekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-03/uon-llm032818.php Visontay, E. (2020). Australians stranded overseas as airlines fly with as few as four economy passengers. The Guardian. August 19.

Chapter 7

Higher Education Places and Spaces

Abstract In this chapter we consider the purpose and design of learning spaces. Learning spaces in the early twenty-first century emphasised glamour features as finances permitted. We propose that safety, learning, aesthetics, and student needs drive design. In addition, universities need to be integrated into the life of their town and suburb, not walled-off spaces. Keywords Campus Design · Learning Spaces · Learning Environment · Virtual Spaces · Social Spaces · Synchronous Asynchronous Learning · Customisable Design · University Communities

7.1 How to Design a Campus: Pandemic Urgencies The overdue arrival of a global pandemic in 2020 has given urgency to a long-standing puzzle for higher education: how to design a campus, including its online learning spaces, with maximum regard to student learning, safety, convenience, economics, community benefit and aesthetics. At the time of writing, universities across the globe are scrambling to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In late August, as the USA passed 175,000 official COVID19 deaths, Professor Jim Ryan, the President of the University of Virginia, declared that “if things change with the virus, we’re going to have to change” (Ottessen, 2020). His response signals education starting to shift from a business-centered approach to something like the public health approach described by Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: “the virus makes the timeline” (LeBlanc, 2020). Globally, institutional responses have varied in line with the seriousness of local outbreaks and the cultural acceptance of blended or distance delivery, but in what is at least partly a response to student concern, institutions in the USA are winding back plans to open campuses (Basken, 2020): one survey found that three-quarters of freshmen are concerned they might contract COVID-19 if they were to attend campus, with all that that entails in terms of campus accommodation, classes, sporting and social events; only 25% trust their colleges to make arrangements to keep them safe; and only 7% trusted fellow students to behave responsibly (Jaschik, 2020). Australian and New Zealand Universities © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_7

91

92

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

have either opened up or not depending on the local prevalence of the pandemic, which varies by state from serious outbreaks in New South Wales and Victoria to zero community transmission in Western Australia and the Northern Territory (Ross, 2020). The UK’s universities are planning for face-to-face learning when term begins in September 2020, and will rely on hygiene requirements including face coverings, blended learning to manage situations where social distancing is not possible and extending teaching hours into evenings and weekends. (McKie, 2020; Redden, 2020). Asian universities are also scaling back plans to reopen. The global learning situation is further complicated by local academic conventions: countries such as the USA and the UK, where students often travel away from home to study, may find blended learning difficult to support, and fully online learning is proving unpopular in the USA, where student’s fees include extensive facilities and functions, including high-profile college sporting events (Golodryga et al. 2020). Developing nations may find online learning unaffordable (Obsawa, 2020). In relation to higher education places and spaces, a radical idea is that universities prioritise student and staff safety. A global effort to re-imagine campuses and learning spaces as safe environments is in train, and it is hard to overstate what a dramatic change this represents. For the last century, campuses have been designed for profit and pizzazz, and safety has been an afterthought, with university offering escort services to far-off carparks, for example, rather than rethinking student needs. Emphasis has been on retrofitting lighting and alert systems. The new threat of a pandemic shows that the nineteenth-century concerns of contagion and crowding must be central in future developments.

7.2 Campuses, Places In the 1980s, Australian universities deliberately developed their physical footprints as an empire-building and commercial strategy. This process gathered steam as “predominantly teaching-focused colleges of advanced education and other government funded higher education institutions were turned into or merged with universities” (Norton and Cherastidtham 2018). This led to problems with budgets, mission, crosscampus administration and teaching, institutional identity, and the dilution of research output, as non-research institutions were shoe-horned into traditional universities. In addition, many Australian universities became enormous, complicated entities, with campuses often physically remote from each other, including international, and multiple cross-subsidies. Little thought was given to how these issues and processes might be managed before new campuses were acquired. Spaces within a given city, heritage buildings, city precincts and so on, were bought up and added to a university footprint. The process was described by the disaffected as a version of campus Monopoly. But it seemed at the time a sensible idea to many, on the grounds that small is vulnerable and that land-banking is always going to be a money maker. This mindset is beginning to change as a result of the economic effects of the pandemic. Australian universities have lost enormous amounts of revenue from

7.2 Campuses, Places

93

international student fees (estimated to be 40 to 55%). Universities were specifically excluded from Australian government industry assistance (JobKeeper) and are therefore obliged to find other ways to manage this enormous shortfall. As well as addressing staffing and infrastructure costs, it is likely that Universities will attempt to unscramble the multi-campus egg, at least in part, as part of “a major review of the viability of each in a post-COVID-19 world” (Marshman and Larkins, 2020). Our next radical idea is that campuses prioritise learning, aesthetics, and student needs. Physical campuses should2012 be designed to maximise the generation of knowledge, but this has not necessarily been the guiding principle of campus design and organisation (Keppell et al., ). For the last thirty years or so, Universities have been spending big on capital works projects, glamorous facilities and high-end landscaping: iconic buildings, elaborate garden areas, indoor rock-climbing walls and, in the USA, the famous Lazy Rivers (Frearson, 2015; Horn 2019). These projects seem to have been intended to have a role in raising an institution’s profile, as well as attracting students interested in cool partying and affordances. Enjoyable as they might be, luxury affordances do not contribute much to student learning, and to the extent that they lead to crowding and hard partying may work against both learning and safety. The potential hazards of shared learning spaces have also moved into sharp focus, as students, parents and administrators think of the cruise-ship-like potential of dorms, frat parties and dining halls (Huang, 2020). The COVID-19 virus has upended the high-profit pack-’em-in model of student learning. The need to provide for safety, in terms of the requirement for hygiene and social distancing, will contribute to the development of learning-friendly physical spaces going forward. Ironically this design principle has always been understood to be important. Lecture theatres, teaching spaces and libraries must be spacious enough to accommodate students safely and comfortably. Much research and experience shows that students of all ages prefer to be able to easily rearrange furniture to suit the day’s learning needs, the task, the number of collaborators and so on (Keppell et al., 2012). This means the space must not be too packed with students and equipment, and needs light, easily moved furniture such as bean bags, chairs on wheels, readily moved tables and writing surfaces. Technology solutions that allow this are important: too many early twenty-first century classrooms were locked in by hard wiring which froze tables, capacity and layout. Reconfigurability can be possible even in lecture theatres, such as tiered seating that allows group work, café style lectorial rooms and so on. A spacious room with plenty of milling space can no longer be seen as a luxury: it is a learning and health imperative. Those late twentieth century rooms crammed with small uncomfortable chairs were unpleasant for students, particularly in winter, when they carried umbrellas, coats and so on, and they were recognised as a fire hazard, in that the many chairs blocked exits. It is also now clear that they also constitute a hazard in terms of communicable disease. An iconic example of classroom reconfigurability was MIT’s beloved “Building 20 … constructed hastily in 1943 for the urgent development of radar and almost immediately slated for demolition… still in use [in 1993] and still slated for demolition” (Brand, 1994), until replaced by the now-iconic Frank Gehry building, the Stata Center. Despite its dilapidated condition, Building 20 was celebrated as

94

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

“a magic incubator” of intellectual excitement (Brand, 1994). Its success was probably because the state of the building meant that it was perceived as customisable and available for researchers to use as they wished, constituting a kind of sandpit for the research community. These shabby-customisable qualities are as important to learning as they are to, say, neighbourhood pubs. In contemporary universities, the drive to customise can be perceived as inappropriate or destructive: a matter of students making a mess by disarranging rooms or unplugging equipment in order to charge laptops for example. A space which announces and invites customisability, however, is a live and welcoming space which signals all sorts of things to learners: principally institutional respect for the learner on the one hand, and a sense that their contributions are welcome on the other. It also provides a metaphor for the lived experience of ‘building’ and ‘shaping’ knowledge, as the space itself is built and shaped. This is not a “brick and click” hybrid, but a living and customised learning world. The question of customisability feeds into the overriding issue of comfort and aesthetic acceptability. For learners, the provision of surroundings that can be rearranged to personnel need and maximises comfortable learning is experienced as a proxy for institutional respect (Keppell et al., 2012). This means foregrounding student needs: no waiting outside in all weathers, no crowding. No privately operated café spaces that forbid study in order to keep customers coming through. No elaborate formal spaces which exclude students. No dangerous treks to far-off car parks or public transport. The campus should have spacious classrooms that readily allow student collaboration. They should have large numbers of informal learning spaces, including multiple tiny (“eddy”) spaces, in every possible location, indoor and out, so that small groups can gather to talk and work. These spaces require power, some form of seating (anything from a log to an easy chair) and some form of protection from weather or foot traffic. There should be hot water taps for student tea bags, mini kitchen areas if possible. Student learning benefits from beautiful surroundings in harmony with the external environment, whether urban, rural, or beachside. There should be a provision of both calming and exciting spaces. The campus should be accessible in multiple ways, including by public transport with institutional wifi.

7.3 Aesthetics Learning aesthetics are sadly underdone in traditional campuses. Sometimes they are more part of an architect’s bag of tricks than of the learning landscape. There is, however, no doubt that aesthetics and especially colour can profoundly affect mood in all situations: when a train station in Tokyo introduced blue lighting on its platforms, suicide rates dropped dramatically, by as much as 84%. This is thought to be a result of the positive effect of light on mood (McKean, 2014). Colour has a powerful impact on our conscious and unconscious brains, and can obviously, play an important role in the learning capacity of students, both online and in classrooms. Colour can affect perception, attention span, memory, cognitive

7.3 Aesthetics

95

alertness and comprehension. It has also been used as an intervention for students with learning difficulties such as autism and dyslexia. “There need to be strategies to facilitate the learning process and colours can play a role in motivating students to learn and profit from their educational experiences,” notes a 2013 article in the Malaysian Journal of Medication Sciences (Dzulkifli and Mustafar, 2013). Research from Curtin University in Western Australia involving 24 undergraduates found that reading scores were significantly higher when the reading was undertaken in vividcolour conditions than in a cool-colour palette. Colour had a significant impact on participants’ emotions; blue increased a sense of relaxation and calmness while reds and yellows saw heart rate increase. Colour has also been found to have a powerful impact on memory. These findings have strong implications for educational settings both online and in physical settings. Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman reinforced a lot of these findings in the best-selling book Thinking Fast and Slow, in which he delineates two systems of thinking: one fast, automatic and non-conscious; the other slow, deliberate and conscious (Kahneman, 2013). Colour, Kahneman found, affects our fast, nonconscious thinking in ways that we are only now starting to understand, with potentially broad implications for education, and all manner of human endeavours (Kahneman, 2013). A radical idea, therefore, is that learning institutions need to channel and embrace the psychology of colour. Campuses should utilise colour and learning aesthetics to build campus “stickiness”, that is to make campuses places where students want to hang out, and to provide a range of emotional landscapes for learning.

7.4 The Walled University Many traditional University campuses are seamlessly interconnected with the towns whose names they bear. Walk through Oxford and it is difficult to determine when you are on a university campus or in the town. It is the same in Dublin where Trinity College merges with the life of the city. The same is true for any number of inner-city campuses such as UCL, Penn State University, RMIT University, University of San Diego, Australian National University and Deakin University’s Waterfront campus at Geelong. These successes are in contrast to what might be perceived as otherwise less successful city/campus partnerships. For example, Deakin University’s Warrnambool campus is situated outside the town in rural Victoria, Australia and has been seen to not successfully integrate with it. It can be difficult to try to integrate a walled-off university. For a few decades from the mid-1900s onwards, new Australian universities were built on outer suburban greenfield sites where land was cheap and plentiful. There was no community to speak of to integrate with at the time. Increasingly, there is a reversal of this trend and largely for equity and access reasons. Suburban campuses on the outskirts of cities and towns can be hard to get to. They are not inviting to people who do not think they belong, neither physically nor psychologically accessible. In recent

96

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

years we have seen universities, particularly those located in areas with populations of lower socioeconomic status people, increasingly move into urban centres, even high-rise buildings. Behind this is the desire to tear down psychological barriers between city and campus, town and gown. There are analogies in other large grand institutions which need income. Stately houses are one example, from ancient aristocratic piles to more modern houses like Melbourne’s Montsalvat. These properties can raise revenue and also build enormous affection by offering themselves as a community space, available for tours, weddings, meetings and so on. We can see this process in Australia. For example, the University of Tasmania has been moving its campuses in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie with the express desire of breaking down barriers. Deakin University’s waterside campus in Geelong is available for function hire. University enhancement is also strategy to rejuvenate tired and dilapidated inner cities. As Antoine van Agtmael and Fred Bakker argue, close collaboration between a university, local start-ups, local businesses and local governments can give rise to a ‘brainbelt’ (van Agtmael and Bakker, 2016). Which in turn, creates a virtuous cycle of more growth. It is an idea popularised by Richard Florida in The Rise of the Creative Class (Florida, 2002), where he argues that a combination of technology, talent and social tolerance is a prerequisite for stimulating an urban growth cycle powered by creative industries. Universities are an important component of this heady recipe. Modern academic workloads in fact often include “community” or “culture” as one of three pillars. Our radical idea is, simply, that universities embrace their communities.

7.5 Community at the Bottom of a Garden As part of the community engagement, universities could use their physical space to address one of the most pressing physical problems in the developed world: the corruption and alienation of the food supply. This is reflected in everything from skyrocketing obesity and diabetes rates to overpackaging and landfill issues. Many children, particularly in Anglophone countries, do not have a good sense of where food comes from, or even of a wide range of fruits and vegetables. University campuses often have large amounts of non-productive land. Turning some of that landscaping into productive vegetable gardens complete with chickens for eggs and meat as per Joel Salatin’s vision (Salatin, 2012), available for sale at good prices to students and others, would reintroduce the idea of humane, historical normal food chains to young people. Community gardens could supply local people, students, shelters; they could be operated by students, including agriculture/viticulture students, business majors, teaching students and so on. By developing serious community gardens, universities can break down student alienation, the commodification of food and the town and gown divide.

7.5 Community at the Bottom of a Garden

97

In addition, community gardens contribute to the building of a “sticky campus”, one where students want to spend time. This is useful for students to promote engagement, mental health and happiness, and it is important that ‘stickiness’ should be about learning, sustenance and community life, rather than, say, wild parties or élite networking. Different campuses can be sticky in different ways, and this holds true for community gardens. It would be useful for urban campuses to model urban agriculture, rooftop gardens, cultivated verges, opportunistic hanging baskets for herbs, zucchini, cherry tomatoes and so on. Campuses with extensive grounds can develop small farms, with or without livestock. Tool libraries and seedlings can be made available to students and the community. Composting and recycling are becoming urgent social problems as traditional recycling nations decline to continue to accept our refuse, and worm farms, compost bins and their products can be modelled and sold to community members. This strategy has been successfully introduced to some schools and preschools (Alexander and Oliver, nd). The slowness of food production and consumption sits well with “slow learning”, the traditional university approach to intellectual development, as opposed to the 24-h news cycle, and “bullshitting … communicating with little concern for evidence or truth” (Petrocelli, 2018).

7.6 Virtual Spaces Even before the global pandemic, students were demanding more and better online resources. Marshman and Larkins (2020) observe that: In an environment where university education is increasingly a combination of ‘click and brick’ modes, Australian universities which have predominantly offered international students a campus-based experience will increasingly need to compete with globally established on-line providers if they are to rebuild market share. This is daunting for universities that have experienced staff and student pushback in trying to build that ‘click and brick’ experience, without adequate resourcing and without much staff enthusiasm. Some Universities are further along this path than others. But the advantage of being forced to do better in the blended learning space position is the inevitability of reconceptualising what physical presence means in learning and teaching. As medicine and the workplace responded to the pandemic by speedily redeveloping telehealth and telecommuting practices which had long been resisted, education must redevelop a sense of place and time. Rather than a set of discrete, disparate, synchronous and differently resourced locales, institutional physical presence should provide a continuum of physical, temporal and virtual meeting places that students can use as safety, convenience and learning imperatives require. Physical learning spaces have been shaped by an unpredictable mix: economics, convention, building regulations, student preference, ingrained prejudices and commercial considerations. The characteristics of physical learning spaces differ across the world, from ramshackle to palatial on-campus facilities and fraternity

98

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

houses (Wilkes, 2020; Stripling, 2017). Online learning spaces also range from the depressing–lists of PDF files with little instructor input–to rich and well-designed multi-platform web sites. The twenty-first century saw this unpredictable mix come together to cause a kind of planning gridlock. An extreme example of cost-cutting crossed with the inability to conceptualise online learning was the phenomenon sometimes referred to as “daisy-chaining”, where two or more lecture theatres, sometimes adjacent and on the one campus, sometimes on different campuses, were video-linked to a live lecture in the “first” lecture theatre. This had some advantages in terms of costs: one lecturer could lecture in real time to unlimited numbers of students. It seemed to be no extra work for the lecturer, who just turned up for the allotted time, lectured and moved on to the next task, and no extra staff needed to be employed. However, the student experience in the remote locations was alienating in the extreme. As with all live streaming, glitches were likely, and these increased in proportion to the number of venues. The cognitive load on the lecturer in trying to keep all the venues in mind was the hidden extra work. Most lecturers seemed to fall back on lecturing pretty much mainly to the group in front of them, which is alienating for the remote groups, who could respond by misbehaviour from dancing to throwing things at the screen. In the Australian system, safety regulations require lecture theatres to be able to seat the maximum numbers of students enrolled in subjects. As subject enrolments get larger, so therefore do lecture theatres. It is common knowledge that student attendance drops off after the first few weeks of semester, leaving lecturers fuming as they address tiny numbers in huge lecture halls, and campuses full of empty spaces. In daisy-chaining, the lecturer can be looking at a half-filled, or even empty, lecture theatre in front of him, and several similar on the screen. This practice leads to economic losses as students withdraw, and in addition, huge budgets are consumed by building, refurbishing and maintaining these spaces, leaving little over for development of alternative spaces for learning. Unless a way around this conceptual and regulatory impasse is imagined, we are stuck. The 2020 global pandemic has opened up some opportunities here. Institutions, many of which had resisted the digital for years, were obliged to pivot to online learning virtually overnight and country after country went into lockdown. Online learning was opened up worldwide, from preschools to universities. With this pivot, however, come problems, particularly pertaining to difficulties in imagining online learning as anything other than synchronous, face-to-face learning conducted at a distance and accessed online in real time. A radical idea, therefore, is that online learning be purpose-built to provide interactive, highly engaging learning experiences for students. In the post-pandemic world, new forms of attendance tracking are required on many campuses. Time-restricted bookings have been put in place at venues which once used to be free-for all: zoos, galleries, restaurants, wineries, even supermarkets. This would be useful for student convenience. Students vote with their feet by avoiding lectures and demanding more and better online materials to complement face-to-face learning, and it is necessary now to capitalise on this by developing models which set a maximum attendance number

7.6 Virtual Spaces

99

and allow campus attendance to be chosen. Students could book attendance at a lecture theatre if they intend to come along in person, and the face-to-face lecture then supported by streamed, recorded and fully online learning materials and interactions. It would be possible to provide extra face-to-face sessions in the first weeks of semester, especially for first year students. Even in the early years of the century, students moved in nomadic but purposeful ways across a learning landscape of which the physical university is only a part (Keppell et al., 2012). Students come to higher education enmeshed in a work/home/study continuum, and the problem for the university is to enter into and advance these open and flexible communities on campus. For today’s students, élite or not, the freedom to customise the learning space, and the spaces between them, remains central to the learning experience. This means that for many contemporary learners, there really are no walls to a university. The University is where they are working (Keppell et al., 2012). As well as the impressive spaces of the physical campuses, virtual spaces are an integral part of learning. Comprehending the reality of the virtual may be difficult for those who have not grown up immersed in a technology-mediated world. Furthermore, the polarising tension between a generation committed to physical reality and an emerging generatio open to virtual influences is unhelpful for cooperative and collaborative communication. Although there is extensive critique of both sites and situations, there is also an unfolding discourse exploring the spaces in between (Laurillard, 2002)

7.7 Synchronous and Asynchronous In the panicky pivot to the online, after years of resistance, educators from kindergarten to graduate school seem to be emphasising synchronous delivery. As schools closed across the globe, students of all ages are being required by their schools to remain glued to screens, headsets in place, for many hours, even though the parents of younger students may have been trying to limit screen time in line with expert advice, adolescents may have difficulty concentrating in crowded households, and adult students may find online study without childcare very awkward (Yu and Baxter, 2016). Graduate students are being made to endure traditional ice-breaking exercises in online classes. One reason for the unreflective adoption of synchronous delivery is that it assumes that online teaching, while a poor substitute for face-to-face teaching, is essentially the same. Educators are used to the stand-and-deliver method of teaching. The lecturer comes in with notes/ideas/perhaps slides, and talks, may take questions and leaves. It is no conceptual burden to transfer this to online delivery. Teachers and lecturers do not need to be trained to think differently about how students learn, or to create new kinds of educational materials. Academic staff may feel that their expertise is less challenged, and academic unions may be less antagonised, by the idea of transferring the activity to an online context than might be the case if the

100

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

nature of the activity were changed and some retraining required. University administrations may suspect that keeping the stand-and-deliver mode intact would mean less expenses in staff development. Face-to-face delivery can be problematic in its own terms, especially when the basic format is the large, multi-hour lecture, offered as two, three, even five-hour face-to-face classes. As discussed in Chap. 3, this format has persisted. It simplifies their workload, and also minimises costs, despite the fact that it has been known for a very long time that no one can focus for these periods of verbal delivery (Cooper & Richards, 2016). Students are less keen on long lectures, though they too may enjoy the one-stop-shop effect. The problem compounds when providing a three-hour face-to-face lecture as a three-hour online lecture. The boredom factor is increased in synchronous online lectures, maximising many of the cognitive disadvantages of lengthy verbal transmission but without providing the social possibilities of face-to-face lecture: a change of scenery, a coffee with friends afterwards (Tinto, 2006). Poorly designed online courses are highly likely to cause problems for student retention (Bawa, 2016). There are also technical disadvantages to reliance on synchronous delivery. All technology comes with glitches and attempting to interact in real time is very unforgiving. Remote schooling in the pandemic usually involves parents as tech support, often when they are themselves trying to work from home. Synchronous online classes for university students mean that students are trying to work from their family home, share house and so on, perhaps on shared devices, maybe on phones, perhaps with inadequate data provision. The net goes slowly when everyone is online. Children, partners, pets, may interrupt. People forget to mute their microphone and may even fall asleep and begin to snore. Cameras are left at embarrassing angles, and Twitter explodes with stories of naked household members or illicit visitors wandering into frame. In 2017, Professor Robert Kelly became an early casualty of the complications of working from home and gained world fame as “BBC dad” when his very small children hilariously invaded a live online interview, and his wife tried to help (Usborne, 2017).

7.8 Asynchronous The irreplaceable element in asynchronous learning is the same as in synchronous learning: the teacher’s presence. It perhaps seems counterintuitive that asynchronous learning can have a strong sense of teacher presence, and synchronous online learning can lack it, but that is the case. Asynchronous delivery has been less favoured in the panicky pivot to remote teaching at the start of the global pandemic and also over the last twenty years as universities began to move to blended learning. This is partly because simply lecturing to camera does not really require rethinking the nature of learning. But it is also another instance of how intuitive thinking can be deeply misleading, as per Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow (Kahneman, 2013).

7.8 Asynchronous

101

As discussed in Chap. 3, learning from another human being is a back-and-forth process, which deepens as learning progresses. In the celebrated words of John Biggs, learning is “what the student does”, and “education is about conceptual change, not just the acquisition of information” (Biggs, 1999). In this sense, all learning is asynchronous: the teacher outlines the task, provides an analysis of the issues, points to resources and assigns tasks to help the student pursue the problem and deepen their understanding. As with email, text messaging or social media, the educator does not need to be ‘live” for this to happen, though it can be pleasant if this is sometimes the case. The crucial link is for academic staff to conceptualise how to put together a mix of presentation, discussion, resources and tasks. Traditional academics often have a throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall approach to this: they lecture for an hour or several, sometimes conceptualising this as a modelling process, and hope it works. Often it does. But the process may depend also on question-and-answer sessions, which can drive academics mad in an online context if they try to answer hundreds of email queries. How to move all this to the online context and create a lively asynchronous learning space which won’t crush the teacher? At one extreme, online subjects can be set up as a repository of PDF files, a depressing and lonely experience for a student, and one which amounts to self-instruction. At the other extreme, it is a simple matter to provide a clean template for a weekly interactive subject site: a brief video, or even text, introduction, outlining what will be studied that week and some of the issues; a set of resources, such as academic-created videos, academic-created eBooks, links to TED talks, podcasts, book chapters and journal articles; some activities, such as questions and knowledge checks; and a way for the students to interact with peers, academic staff and, where possible, industry experts, perhaps in a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous approaches. This approach works for all subjects and ages, and while it is a bit of work to front-load, leads to instructor time savings down the road. Students experience a mixture of instructor presence and their own thinking. If the site also provides real time chat, with teachers, experts, and other students, it will constitute a rich online learning space and learning experience. Asynchronous learning also supports the development of highly personalised learning spaces. As Razavi and Iverson state “Personal learning spaces are often used for both social activity and engaged work practices and, as such, provide users with the opportunity to include a wide variety of character/learning revealing artefacts in their environment, from work- related documents, to personal opinions expressed in a weblog, to awards and non- academic activities. Also, use of a personal learning space is considered as a continuum, where it will be used during different stages of learning for different purposes” (Razavi & Iverson, 2007). Personal learning is an unlikely notion to many traditional teachers, who are required to manage and attend to a large class of students. However, evolutionary turns in pedagogy and technology are shifting not only the locus of learning but also its focus (Nespor, 1994; Perkins, 2008). Recent decades have seen a move in the locations and intentions of learning away from classroom-based transmission to more flexible transactional exchanges and on to interactional communication over distances (Perkins, 1999). Whereas the traditional transmission focused

102

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

environment located both teacher and learners in an impersonal, highly structured institutional space, increasing use of technology has enabled and afforded greater flexibility (Oblinger, 2006). This flexibility has enhanced not only the physical environment and its arrangement but has also expanded the teacher learner exchange further towards dynamic interchange whereby both teachers and learners are both learners and teachers, working together to further each other’s understandings.

7.9 Social Life: Paying for the Party Young people of all generations like to remember undergraduate days as fun: sex, and drugs and rock and roll, or as the poet William Wordsworth put it of his youth in the French Revolution, “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive/But to be young was very heaven!” In some places now, particularly in the USA, the right for the young to have a rollicking good time has been institutionalised, monetised, and perhaps weaponised. In Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality, Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton (2013) write convincingly of how US universities have increasingly shifted their priorities to appeal to and benefit affluent middle class white kids, with detrimental impacts on everyone else. In 2019, these practices became headline news with the USA’s college admissions bribery scandal whereby wealthy parents paid bribes to a middleman to ensure their children got entrance into a prestigious, status-granting institution (Jack, 2020). The situation is perhaps more intense in the USA, where professionalised sports give athletic students a leg-up (Leonhardt, 2019), and where a small number of ultra-elite institutions are said to confer employability and marriageability to a greater extent than in, say, Canada (Kingkade, 2019). But outside the USA too, wealthier students do better. It also appears that over the last couple of generations, higher education has less traction in terms of social mobility, and that accordingly, “Elites have responded to an increasingly competitive and polarised society by increasing financial and time investments in their children” (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013). This practice of course starts very early in Australia, with its public subsidisation of expensive fee-charging schools and underfunding of government schools in poorer areas. Wealthier students are funnelled from élite kindergarten to élite University. Those who jump the tracks somehow, like Michelle Obama, describe intense discomfort in the elite institutions they have found their way into (Obama, 2018). In the USA, again, this diabolical situation is intensified by the so-called Greek system of fraternities and sororities, with their party cultures, and dangerous initiation and hazing practices. They have been described as fundamentally anti-inclusive. In Australia, there are comparable practices, expensive University colleges for example. In a more mundane sense, it is argued that university fees and expenses are increased by the spectacular student amenities which are being offered by some institutions, suggesting that a degree might “sound too much like a four-year vacation” (Rubin, 2014). While glitzy facilities may be less of an issue in Australia and the UK, it remains true that social and cultural capital gives wealthier students a leg up, as does the fact that wealthier students

7.9 Social Life: Paying for the Party

103

may have more comfortable study conditions, work less and so on. Money spent on frills benefit wealthier students disproportionately, in that fewer wealthy students generally have less time and opportunity to benefit from them, being engaged in a struggle to hold it all together. How can this be addressed? How can we avoid funding frills for the few, and make higher education more accessible for the many? Is it possible to channel money away from the elite and bring back the possibility of universities as vehicles for social mobility? A radical idea is that universities deprioritise party and sports facilities in favour of learning facilities. To do this, it will be vital to spend money on spaces that support student learning rather than ones which provide expensive recreational facilities. A Lazy River is a nice thing, but in terms of health and wellbeing, it is more useful to fund free gym classes and breakfasts. In terms of learning directly, providing adequate tech-libraries, comfortable and quiet study spaces, class sets of texts where possible, hot and cold water taps so that students can make tea or drink water easily and so on, would help to level the playing field in terms of poorer students. Shuttle buses with wifi will be of use to students without cars. Twenty-four-hour libraries are expensive to provide, but not as expensive as a water park. If universities routinely designed campuses, physical and virtual, to put learning first, and party-time last, funding priorities would shift radically.

References Alexander, S. (n.d). Kitchen garden: Stephanie alexander’s kitchen garden foundation. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.kitchengardenfoundation.org.au/ Armstrong, E., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Harvard University Press. Basken, P. (2020). Few US universities plan significant on-campus teaching. Times Higher Education. August 19. Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions—a literature review SAGE Open. January-March 2016. 1–11. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Viking. Cooper, A. Z., Richards, J. B. (2016). Lectures for adult learners: Breaking old habits in graduate medical education. AAIM Perspectives. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.amj med.com/article/S0002-9343(16)31217-7/pdf Dzulkifli, M. A., Mustafar, M. F. (2013). The influence of colour on memory performance: A review. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 20(2), 3–9. Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books. Frearson, A. (2015). Frank Gehry’s “paper bag” business school opens in Sydney. De Zeen. February 3, 2015. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.dezeen.com/2015/02/03/frank-gehrypaper-bag-dr-chau-chak-wing-uts-business-school-sydney-opens/ Golodryga, B., Edwards, M., & Pomrenze, Y. (2020). Students call for colleges to cut tuition costs as school year begins online. CNN. August 18. Horn, M. B. (2019). Why lazy rivers have their place on college campuses—and yet still might just be lazy. Forbes. November 14.

104

7 Higher Education Places and Spaces

Huang, P. H., Austin, D. S. (2020). Unsafe at any campus: Don’t let colleges become the next cruise ships. nursing homes, and food processing plants. Indiana Law Journal Supplement, 96, 25–65. Jack, A. (2020). A separate and unequal system of college admissions. The New York Times. September 15. Jaschik, S. (2020). Nervous freshmen, nervous colleges. Inside Higher Ed. August 10. Kahnemann, D. (2013). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Keppell, M., Souter, K., & Riddle, M. (2012). (Eds.), Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education: Concepts for the modern learning environment. IG1 Global. Kingkade, T. (2019). This is why Canadian universities don’t have college admissions scandals. The Huffington Post. April 26. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. Leonhardt, D. (2019). The admissions scandal is really a sports scandal. The New York Times. March 13, 2019. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/opinion/col lege-sports-bribery-admissions.html LeBlanc, P. (2020). You don’t make the timeline; the virus makes the timeline’ on relaxing public health measures. CNN. March 26. Retrieved December 12, 2020. McKean, C. A. (2014). How blue lights on train platforms combat Tokyo’s suicide epidemic. March 20, 2014. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/how-bluelights-on-train-platforms-combat-tokyos-suicide-epidemic McKie, A. (2020). Smaller class sizes push more teaching into evenings and weekends. Times Higher Education. August 20. Marshman, I., Larkins, F. (2020). Modelling individual Australian universities resilience in managing overseas student revenue losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. LH Martin Institute. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/lh-martin-institute/ insights/modelling-individual-australian-universities-resilience-in-managing-overseas-studentrevenue-losses-from-the-covid-19-pandemic Norton, A., Cherastidtham, I. (2018). Mapping Higher Education 2018.Grattan Institute Report No. 2018–11. September 2018, 13. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://grattan.edu.au/report/ mapping-australian-higher-education-2018/ Obama, M. (2018). Becoming. Penguin Books. Obsawa, W. (2020). How students in Africa are handling the coronavirus outbreak.Times Higher Education. April 16, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.timeshighereduc ation.com/student/blogs/how-students-africa-are-handling-coronavirus-outbreak Oliver, J. (nd) Jamie Oliver’s kitchen garden project. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https:// www.foodforlife.org.uk/early-years/early-years-kitchen-garden-project Ottessen, K. (2020). As U-Va. prepares to open online amid pandemic, university president says: ‘If things change with the virus, we’re going to have to change. The Washington Post. August 19, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/mag azine/as-u-va-prepares-to-open-online-amid-pandemic-university-president-says-its-still-tooearly-to-just-give-up-on-the-entire-semester/2020/08/18/1dee2264-d759-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03 988_story.html Petrocelli, J. V. (2018). Antecedents of bullshitting.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 249–258. Redden, E. (2020). British universities largely plan for in-person fall. Inside Higher Ed. June 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/ 18/british-universities-largely-plan-person-fall Ross, J. (2020). Universities need to have mask discussion, says UNSW deputy. Times Higher Education. August 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.timeshighereduc ation.com/news/universities-need-have-mask-discussion-says-unsw-deputy Rubin, C. (2014). Making a splash on campus. The New York Times. September 19. Salatin, J. (2012) Folks, this ain’t normal, a farmer’s advice for happier hens, healthier people, and a better world. New York: Center Street

References

105

Stripling, J. (2017). The lure of the lazy river. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 15, 2017. Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next?. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 1–19. Agtmael, V., Antoine, W., & Bakker, F. (2016) The smartest places on earth: Why rustbelts are the emerging hotspots of global innovation. New York: Hachette Book Group Usborne, S. (2017). The expert whose children gate crashed his TV interview: ‘I thought I’d blown it in front of the whole world. The Guardian. 20 December. Wilkes., K. (2020). Questions of value for higher education: The case of luxury student accommodation. In D. Simon, & M. Lenormand (Eds.), Neoliberalism in context. London: Palgrave Macmillan Yu, M., & Jennifer, B. (2016). Australian children’s screen time and participation in extracurricular activities. Retrieved December 12, 2020, fromhttps://growingupinaustralia.gov.au/research-fin dings/annual-statistical-report-2015/australian-childrens-screen-time-and-participation-extrac urricular?_ga=2.172160163.1273380131.1597633589-2392303.1597633589

Chapter 8

Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

Abstract This chapter concludes Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education by summarising the seven suggestions for the higher education sector, specifically for the Australian context. Keywords Future of Higher Education · Purpose of Higher Education · Student Learning · Learning Technologies · Access and Affordability · Higher Education Internationalisation · Globalisation · Policy and funding

8.1 Predicting the Future of Higher Education There are many converging and divergent commentaries as to how higher education should change and what the future of it will look like. One prediction from HolonIQ (2018), Higher Education 2030, for example, suggests five scenarios for the future of learning and talent. These scenarios include, first, education-as-usual: where traditional education institutions remain the trusted source of learning and the most effective vehicle for jobs and prosperity. Second, “regional rising, where regional alliances dominate the competitive education landscape, supported by strategic and political cooperation”. Third, global giants or the rise of “mega-organisations” that have “ubiquitous brand recognition and the scale to achieve significant efficiencies and industry power”. Fourth, peer-to-peer, “learning online through rich, personalised human to human experiences”. Finally, fifth, a roborevolution, “AI drives a complete reversal in who leads learning, with virtual tutors and mentors structuring learning paths, providing assessment tasks, giving feedback, adjusting according to progress and organising human tutoring where needed” (HolonIQ 2018). In predicting the future of higher education in a disruptive world, KPMG sees traditional universities as approaching a crossroads, with the decision to respond to COVID-19 as either transformation, optimisation, do nothing and react later, or do nothing and take the risk of being left behind (KPMG, 2020). “Transformation” in this context refers to a change to the operating model requiring a fundamental shift in value proposition and business model (KPMG, 2020). “Optimisation” is an improvement to organisational effectiveness and efficiency in order to improve performance to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Macken et al., Seven Radical Ideas for the Future of Higher Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4428-3_8

107

108

8 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

meet strategic ambitions and enact its business model. KPMG predicts that the future of higher education will have several features including shorter courses and degrees, a focus on lifelong learning, digitally native cohorts, experiential learning, borderless offerings, competition at scale and education integrated into lifestyle (KPMG, 2020). The latter would result in a reduction of young people seeking “immersive, rite-ofpassage, full-time, on-campus, bachelor education” in favour of micro-credentials, competency-based education, non-degrees and curated degrees (KPMG, 2020). Another view considers that the university of the future must play a vital role in upskilling and reskilling populations in line with nations’ needs (Eisenberg, 2020). Forward-looking universities must address issues of diversity, in particular the economic diversity of their intakes, and commitments to sustainability must be upheld and past institutional values and actions dealt with in the present (Eisenberg, 2020). Others predict a future in which higher education differentiates through its focus on various functions and roles. Alexander and Manolchev (2020), for example, derive four distinct “universities of the future” models: entrepreneurial, platform, interactive and classic. Entrepreneurial universities work directly with employers, providing apprenticeships, T-level qualifications and a focus on practical training skills for employment-ready graduates (Alexander & Manolchev, 2020). Interactive universities of the future would be applied knowledge disseminators by drawing on “classic” sources of knowledge creators (Alexander & Manolchev, 2020). These universities would be built around massive open online course-style modules, taster courses and edutainment through TED-style talks. Classic universities focus on either researchintensive or research-led activities or teaching in the sense of technical or polytech style education (Alexander & Manolchev, 2020). In yet another view, the future is predicted to see the rise of freelance academic “global superstars” as institutional affiliations erode and “learning designers” supplant many traditional academics (Croucher & Locke, 2020). In this particular version of the future higher education world, the nature of academic work is completely changed from individual academic providers tied to specific institutions, to one where high-profile, freelancing academics offer video and audio content to a number of universities (Croucher & Locke, 2020). The future may see the university as a platform, where unbundled and disaggregated higher education is the viable future for some tertiary providers, complemented by a new student-centric approach to education where the best academics and learning facilitators provide the best environment for student engagement (Croucher & Locke, 2020). A further suggestion for the future of higher education is for institutions to embrace the advice of Peter Senge (2006). This would see higher education reorganising as a learning organisation that has a culture of trying out new ideas, always iterating, refining and incrementally adjusting (Senge, 2006). According to Senge there are five disciplines to embed learning within an organisation: mental models, team learning, personal mastery, systems thinking and shared vision (Senge, 2006). Or these universities could apply “building a shared vision”, where there is a practice of unearthing visions of the future that foster commitment and buy-in as opposed to compliance (Senge, 2006). Furthermore, the siloed nature of universities largely precludes “team

8.1 Predicting the Future of Higher Education

109

learning”, characterised by the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine thinking together. Higher education could indeed be a system described by Garvin et al. (2008) of “knowledge-creating” organisations that are “skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and skilled at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights” (Garvin et al., 2008). The learning organisation is one that starts with systematic, scientific, data-based and research-informed problem solving. This then leads to an activity of experimentation, involving the systematic searching for and testing of new knowledge. The learning organisation learns from past experiences, reviewing successes and failures and assessing them systematically, learning from others, and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organisation. Finally, the learning organisation measures learning, which could take the form of learning and experience curves (Garvin, 2008). From a practical perspective, hypotheses and models for change for higher education are useful because they are prescriptive and provide a framework through which institutions can adapt to fulfil the needs of society in the future. Predictions are, however, also largely unreliable because the future is unpredictable. No one can really predict what will happen in the future and how universities will weather whatever storms it will face. Sweeping statements categorising higher education futures into types and categories runs a serious risk of simplifying the many complex institutions that together make up the higher education sector. As Locke laments: “Often the views put forward are of management consultants, ‘thought leaders’ and journalists, tending to present a series of cataclysmic scenarios, in which various factors combine to challenge and disrupt traditional academic conventions, business models and working practices in public universities” (Locke, 2020). It is clear, however, that the diverse, rich and wonderful landscape of higher education requires an ecosystem of approaches that combines and innovates on different ideas. These concepts touch on the heart of the disaggregation of higher education. The unbundling and re-bundling of venerable institutions is obviously crucial, for they are both an engine and product of educational policymaking. For example, government support may shift away from educational programs that produce professionals such as social workers and lawyers in favour of programs that produce scientists and mathematicians. Universities may have to spend more time explaining to governmental and private funders why the functionally comprehensive model of many state universities is good public policy. And, not inconsequentially, students themselves may have to shift their skill set away from consuming knowledge toward acquiring a diversity of creative and innovative learning experiences. The implications are perhaps more numerous than even the authors suggest, but for the top leaders of traditional universities, the implications are as stark as for those who dwell at the base of the snow-covered mountain when the elements of an avalanche are beginning to form complex and dangerous combinations. It is obvious that our globalised and technologised world will yield novel collaborations among an expanding base of stakeholders. And embracing the opportunities from the coming disruption is far wiser than ignoring or resisting it, given that rapidity of disruption is unpredictable. Ultimately, each university institution must be empowered to create its own future.

110

8 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

Flexibility is the best business model. Rigid adherence to past practices will simply mean higher education institutions do not survive.

8.2 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education To summarise, this book has proposed seven suggestions for the future of higher education.

8.2.1 The Role of Higher Education is Understood First, the role that higher education plays in society must be truly understood and the values, priorities and strategies of institutions must be driven by this role (Chap. 1: The Role of Higher Education in Society). Whatever its purpose is, higher education must continue to play a role in equipping current and future students for the new post-COVID-19 economy and prepare students for workplaces and a society that is rapidly changing. Higher education must continue to be the creator, disseminator and aggregator of the skills, knowledge and competences required for the operation of successful society. It must continue to remain relevant and be a modern, responsive and efficient system that is economically sound for governments and affordable for individuals. This requires higher education to undertake a radical overhaul of degrees to reflect the different world of careers graduates are entering into tomorrow. This proposes qualifications that reflect the changing nature of industry and employment through changes occasioned by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Higher education must also develop students’ learning skills, particularly focused on digital competencies and the soft skills, competencies and knowledge students require to adapt to multiple, unknown future careers. This includes a focus on lifelong learning and opportunities to develop personal capabilities, self-efficacy, global outlook, flexibility, creativity and critical thinking, to name a few. Higher education must also embrace the potential of unbounded degrees, including a standardised, widely recognisable micro-credential system as recognised packages of learning. Government Policies for Higher Education are Responsive to the Disruption of COVID-19. Second, that the circuit breaker of COVID-19 begins the rapid and profound transformation needed in universities in terms of how they organise themselves and their educational offerings (Chap. 2: Higher Education Policy in a Time of Disruption). In response to this disruption, governments must adapt and adjust the policy landscape to keep up and contribute to the transformation of the higher education sector. Governments need to catch up in terms of developing policies that embrace this accelerated period of digital, technological and AI-enabled reform to instruction, content, feedback and assessment. Universities must be viewed as central to

8.2 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

111

rebuilding social solidarity and mobility in fractured societies; it is not the chance for governments to capitalise on the chaos of COVID-19 disruption to slash budgets and further privatise the higher education sector. In this new age of wild unpredictability governments must put in place a range of policy and regulation measures that embrace online learning, unbundling and rebundling of teaching and qualifications across institutions and education sectors and even countries–while ensuring quality of the educational experience is not compromised. There would be great merit in allowing students to stack single subjects and micro-credentials into qualifications that lead into–and out of–higher education. Universities and government policy must finally fully embrace the notion of lifelong learning: that education will have multiple touchpoints in peoples’ lives as they enter and exit the sector, constantly renegotiating their work skills and career trajectories. The gap between vocational and higher education must be bridged via a single tertiary education funding and policy model. Universities Focus on Student Learning. Third, in terms of teaching and learning in higher education, universities must always focus on student learning. All education systems should be designed with the student–and not the institution–in mind. This means an intense focus on learning outcomes, and the interaction of learners with their teachers, content and each other (Chap. 3). In terms of fundamentals, it is, without question, absolutely imperative for a young person today to have an understanding of technology and digital skills. Universities must embrace both online and blended learning and authentic assessment as contextualised learning. Universities must focus on the principles of excellent learning; this means that a university education provides a learning experience that broadens students knowing and being for life beyond the classroom (Carroll et al., 2019). Learning occurs in context; emotions play a role in how and why students learn (Carroll et al., 2019). Universities must leverage the social dynamics of learning to enhance student experience and that promote the idea that challenge and difficulty can be beneficial for the learning process (Carroll et al., 2019). Universities must encourage students to employ effective methods of thinking and understand how they learn; they can improve the way they learn; and learning must be built on prior knowledge and engage students in deep and meaningful thinking and feeling (Carroll et al., 2019). Students should be treated as students, and not customers of the university. New approaches to teaching and learning that enable critical and creative thinking should be embraced by education institutions. Education should be designed so individual learners can change paths mid-flight on their journey through work and life. For the sake of learners, universities must also embrace disaggregation of the traditional degree, and branch into stackable, micro-credentials and non-traditional learning pathways. Universities Embrace the Use of Technology to Enhance Learning and Teaching. Fourth, higher education must embrace the use of technologies to enhance learning and teaching and to transform itself through the use of technology. In this respect, there are a multitude of possibilities to choose from including artificial intelligence, machine learning, the internet of things, augmented and virtual worlds, chatbots and

112

8 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

virtual assistants, robotics and blockchain for rich, engaging learning experiences, and new ways of social connection and collaboration. Universities must recognise the importance of digital competencies for learners today as there is no inconceivable future in which technology will not play a part (Chap. 4). Academics too must modernise and develop digital skills to be part of the digital age, just as students also require digital skills. COVID-19 has put a rocket under the entire higher education sector to embrace technology and digital learning platforms at unprecedented rates, requiring an enthusiastic continued embrace of both online and hybrid teaching and pedagogies. The future requires universities to position themselves at the digital frontier of teaching and learning to fulfil their function in educating individuals, industry, government and society. Universities Rethink their Approach to Embrace Access and Affordability. Fifth, universities must rethink their approach to access and affordability (Chap. 5: Access and Affordability). One of the underpinning drivers of higher education systems is to extend its many benefits to people from all walks of life. Higher education must play a transformational role in the lives of those who were not born with the luck of genetics, healthy bank balances, geographical proximity to university campuses and access to decent schooling. Equity is, quite simply, fundamental to the mission of higher education policy and practice. Equity is about fairness; it is about ensuring that every student who has the ability to participate fully in higher education has the opportunity to do so, and to succeed once there. Fundamental to this is a rethinking of the relationship between vocational and higher education to create a unified ‘ecosystem’ that does not discriminate against or prioritise one form of learning or one system of education over another. Central to all, equity policy must be a focus on student-centred learning in all its myriad forms. Higher education must do everything it can to avoid entrenching rather than alleviating disadvantage. Higher Education Reconceptualises Internationalisation as a Global Delivery Model. Sixth, higher education must reconceptualise internationalisation as a “global delivery model”, as a social good rather than as a money-making venture. The global delivery model for the internationalisation of higher education refers to hybrid transnational education” meaning well-designed online models delivered by local educators in a partnership model, and where the location of the student is an inherent part of the experience. In the hybrid transnational university, equity and student employability are key issues. The core knowledges will be embedded in and critiqued by local culture, and these critiques ought to feed back into the originating university. It should be possible to build a virtuous international circle of feedback and mutual learning, rather than to create a colonialising experience for students who are studying in their own country via a partnership model, or an elitist one for students able to afford to travel abroad to study. Higher Education Adapts Learning Space Design and Purpose for a Post-COVID19 World.

8.2 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

113

Seventh, in terms of the design and purpose of learning spaces on campus, higher education must adapt to a post-COVID-19 world and use safety, learning, aesthetics, and students to drive design. Virtual learning spaces must be designed to be mobilefirst, welcoming, interactive, and collaborative. In addition, universities need to be integrated into the life of their town and suburb, not walled-off spaces.

8.3 Higher Education is not a Business The last comment on this book is that if universities are to embrace new approaches as articulated above, there is a need for a new approach to how universities effect change. Universities cannot be treated as “just another corporate organisation”, as higher education is simply not a profit-and-loss business (Greenberg, 2004; Kellerman 2011; McKenna 2018), particularly in an environment premised on academic liberty and individual autonomy. This is on top of an unstable higher education policy environment. Anything that looks like “change” actually challenges the heart of academic identity, the roles of professional staff and the very institution itself. It is important to note that it is controversial to even describe a university as a business at all, even if its revenues run into the billions of dollars. Some consider calling a university a business to be insulting: a threat to academic integrity, a compromise to the reason for the very existence of the institution itself. The words management and managerialism are derogatorily used to imply an approach to administration that is governed by a profit and loss analysis and cares little for the unique nature of a university. Taken to the extreme, however, this leads to academics engaged in “resistance” tactics, such as those described by Richard Hil in Whackademia: An Insider’s Account of the Troubled University (2012). In this manifesto, Hil calls “management” by the term “apparatchiks” and provides the following advice to fellow academics, “Home in on one item and make an obscure point that will impress all, then go back to sleep … If you are on a video link, make sure you turn on the mute button, that way you can spend an hour or more lampooning others without them having a clue … Pretend you welcome frankness and honesty …” (Hil, 2012). Further resistance advice worth noting is, “At staff meetings, while it may be tempting to buy an inflatable doll, dress it in your clothes and leave it in your usual seat, this is a tactic only for the very bold” (Hil, 2012). Hil concludes that “resistance can be jolly good fun and you never know, the irrelevance contained in subtle acts of subversion and ridicule might become wonderfully contagious among your more obsequious colleagues” (Hil, 2012). One can only imagine it is tongue in cheek, although reading the full 239 pages would lead to the conclusion that this is not the case. And many well-meaning fellow academics have sat in a room and confronted all, if not more, of these types of tactics. However attractive this view might be to some, it is a romanticised, sentimentalised and unhelpful ideal of universities that is unlikely at the end of the day to ultimately assist student learning and may help to undermine the survival of some vulnerable institutions.

114

8 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

Overall, universities have a culture of competition among programs, faculty staff and each other, which means cooperation is difficult to achieve and rarely rewarded (Diamond, 2006). Individuals are committed to their school, faculty, discipline or department rather than their institution (Diamond, 2006). Academics are generally an unhappy lot, particularly in balancing the workload between research and teaching (Duncan et al., 2015). It is not just Australian academics; reportedly half of United Kingdom academics are stressed with frequent rejection and loss of control making staff feel isolated and ill (Fazackerley, 2019). In the USA, academics bemoan that academia is built on a vicious circle of exploitation resulting in poor mental health, huge workloads, ego-driven professors and rampant plagiarism (Academics anonymous, 2018). In a survey by Nature of more than 6000 graduate students, doctoral students expressed deep-seated frustrations with training, work-life balance, incidents of bullying and harassment and cloudy job prospects (Woolston, 2019). When hundreds of academics gave over 900 Twitter comments to advise their younger selves, highlights included: The meetings suck. ‘No’ is usually the right response to all requests from people outside your lab. Avoid, avoid, avoid. When you’re 32 and peers are a decade into careers, well-funded retirement plans, and happy, forgive the cynicism, but you’ll regret it all. Let your MA suffice.

And advice to those contemplating an academic career: Run away (Custer, 2018).

Although universities are not a business in the traditional sense, it is pretty obvious that all universities should be accountable to their students, to governments, to donors and philanthropists and to their partner institutions around the country and the world. It is also obvious that economic realities apply to universities too, just as they do to business. This is especially the case in Australia where government sources of funding have been in steady decline for decades, as discussed in Chap. 2. Just like every other business in the current age, universities must adapt to transforming themselves, including embracing technology, new business models and mindsets, in order to fulfil their functions. This does not downplay the differences between the purpose of a business and the purpose of a university. In particular, rather than being focused on the exchange of goods and services, a university is seen as the unique institution that nurtures and propels social, scientific and economic change. The third tenet of an academic’s workload–service–reflects that, along with research and teaching, those within a university have a special and precious obligation towards society. There are certainly downsides to managerialism–the casualisation of staff, bumson-seats approaches to entry standards and so on. But, fiscal transparency and responsibility and strong governance and oversight is the least we can ask from our public institutions. Anything less would be shameful.

8.4 A New Approach to Change in Higher Education is Required

115

8.4 A New Approach to Change in Higher Education is Required This book started in Chap. 1 with the comment that “right now, globally, the narrative around universities is one of disruption”. It was observed that, for years, higher education has been called on to transform, with the most extreme outcome the radical altering or ultimate damnation of the entire higher education system. The premise for this book was simple: it is time for universities to finally respond to the multiple calls for reform to a broken system (Enders et al., 2011). Universities must a take advantage of the immense “once-in-a-generation” opportunity for higher education to put “dysfunctional strategies behind them” (Devinney & Dowling, 2020). For higher education to ride the storm of disruption it faces now, and, in the future, there must be new approaches to embracing change. This must include embracing new, collaborative approaches to change where the bitter, antipathous, combative and negative aspects of higher education are left behind. This means more than simply co-creating, or incorporating, the ideas of others. It involves excellence in strategic planning, deliberately fostering and nurturing diverse views, and creating a culture in which co-creation is the norm. These approaches recognise that change impacts at the personal level. The complexity and interplay of people, processes and technology cannot be underestimated, particularly in an environment like a university. It is critical that all of those within a university are supported on their change journey. There is a need to translate what the change means for every person, individually. There is a need to pace the change to make it stick. There must be a focus on capability uplift across the board. The strategy must be specific to context and formed within the spirit of conversation, co-creation and collaboration. It should be underpinned by the principles of openness and transparency. Most of all, it should be exciting, and a future that everyone wants to be a part of. It is a strange quirk of universities that students and alumni should also be considered in the change narrative. This may be surprising given the transitory nature of a student’s presence at university at the moment. If students are to be lifelong learners, they need an ongoing connection and identity with the university itself. After all, the value of their qualifications tomorrow is directly connected to the reputation of the institution in the future. This too brings us back full circle. Higher education must have students as its central focus. As explained in Chap. 1, the role of higher education is to create a culture and learning environment for the holistic development of students. This recognises that learning is not for the imperative of economic growth, with skills at the cost of its wider value and function. Students should have the capability to create new knowledge, debate, research and have wonderful experiences in their learning journeys. As a result of university education, graduates must have a broad knowledge of culture, making decisions by reference to the wider world and an understanding of moral and ethical problems (Badat, 2009).

116

8 Seven Suggestions for the Future of Higher Education

In this chapter, our final radical idea is a call for higher education to embrace disruption and change. Perhaps this will be one of the biggest challenges: unlearning the past and creating new futures. Every higher education institution must know what it represents and its core purpose. Academic staff of the future must be enthusiastic pedagogues, technologically flexible and committed to student learning. Research time should be paid for by government or industry grants: it must not be paid for by student fees. Although constant change is a wicked problem to address, higher education has no choice but to embrace it. As we argue in Chap. 1, higher education performs an important role in equipping current and future students for the new post-COVID19 economy and preparing students for workplaces and a society that is rapidly changing. Higher education must continue to remain relevant and be a modern, responsive and efficient system that is economically sound for governments and affordable for individuals. Higher education is worth fighting for. Overall, this book paints a positive, optimistic view of the future of higher education, premised on the belief that higher education must be inspired to construct the future that it wants to have, and the one that society needs.

References Academics Anonymous. (2018). Academia is built on exploitation. We must break this vicious cycle. The Guardian. May 18. Alexander, A., & Manolchev, C. (2020). The future of university or universities of the future: A paradox for uncertain times.International Journal of Education Management, 34(7), 1143–1153 Badat, S. (2009). The role of higher education in society: Valuing higher education. https://www.academia.edu/2389150/THE_ROLE_OF_HIGHER_EDUCATION_IN_SOC IETY_VALUING_HIGHER_EDUCATION. Accessed 12 December 2020. Carroll, A., Lodge, J. M., Bagraith, R., Nugent, A., Matthews, K., & Sah, P. (2019). Higher education learning framework: An evidence-informed model for university learning. Brisbane, The University of Queensland. Croucher, G., Locke, W. (2020). A post-coronavirus pandemic world: Some possible trends and their implications for Australian higher education. Melbourne CSHE discussion paper. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/ 3371941/a-post-coronavirus-world-for-higher-education_final.pdf Custer, S. (2018). Hundreds of academics give advice to their younger selves. Times Higher Education. July 30. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/ hundreds-academics-give-advice-their-younger-selves Devinney, T., & Dowling, G. (2020). Is this the crisis higher education needs to have?. Times Higher Education. May 14. Diamond, R. M. (2006). Why are colleges so hard to change? Inside higher Ed. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/08/why-colleges-areso-hard-change Duncan, R., Tilbrook, K., & Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (2015). Does academic work make Australian academics happy? Australian Universities’ Review 57(1). Eisenberg, J. (2020). 5 lessons for the future of universities. The World Economic Forum, 27 February.

References

117

Enders, J., De Boer, H. F., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2011). Reform of higher education in Europe. (Eds.), New York: Springer Fazackerley, A. (2019). ‘It’s cut-throat’: half of UK academics stressed and 40% thinking of leaving. The Guardian, May 21. Garvin, DA., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?.Harvard Business Review. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.alnap.org/system/files/con tent/resource/files/main/r0803h-pdf-eng.pdf Greenberg, M. (2004). A university is not a business (and other fantasies) Educause Review, 39(2), 10–16. Hil, R. (2012). Whackademia: An insider’s account of the troubled university. UNSW Press. HolonIQ. (2019). Education in 2030: Five scenarios for the future of learning and talent. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.holoniq.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HolonIQ-Edu cation-in-2030.pdf Kellermann, P. (2011). The university as a business? In P. Rondo-Brovetto, & I. Saliterer (Eds.), The university as business?, New York: Springer KPMG. (2020). The future of higher education in a disruptive world. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/10/future-of-higher-education.pdf Locke, W. (2020). Visions of higher education futures: The shape of things to come? In C. Callender, W. Locke, & S. Marginson (Eds.), Changing higher education for a changing world. London: Bloomsbury McKenna, S. (2018). Here are five signs that universities are turning into corporations. The Conversation, March 14. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Random House UK. Woolston, C. (2019). PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature, November 13.