Developing Learners in a Connected World: An Interview with Dr. Bernard Bull
Dr. Bernard Bull is Assistant Vice President of Academics and Associate Professor of Education at Concordia University Wisconsin. He holds degrees in history, education, humanities and instructional technology. His work, writing and consulting focus on futures in education, educational innovation, educational entrepreneurship, and the intersection of education and digital culture. Here, he answers our questions about the future of higher education.
In a recent presentation to industry leaders and administrators (“Higher Ed Beyond Credits, Degrees and Programs”), you spoke about what education looks like in an increasingly connected world and how an institution can innovate without losing sight of its mission and values.
As these institutions begin to “dig wells of possibility” for themselves, how do you think they can stay informed and current in the landscape of 21st-centrury higher ed?
When I talk about exploring the possibilities, part of what I mean is that it is incredibly valuable to gain a depth and breadth of knowledge about what is possible in the emerging future of higher education. Too often, we are stuck in educational ruts based upon our past practices and the past practices of other higher education institutions.
Depending upon where one starts their exploration, it is certainly good to first get informed about what has happened in higher education in the past and the diversity of models and practices today. When you start to dig into the origin of our current practices, you find that so many things we consider staples of a higher education experience are relatively new innovations. Even practices like the Carnegie Unit and the dominant letter grade system are not very old. At the same time, certain practices that some consider new, like distance learning, have been around almost as long as something like the letter grade system.
We’ve had distance learning in higher education since the 1700s. Isn’t it interesting that the concept of giving a multiple-choice test, which many in higher education consider a standard practice, is actually newer than the practice of distance education? So, getting informed about the history of higher education practices, policies and technologies can be a way to help us put things in perspective, to realize that higher education is bigger than some of the practices that we so quickly associate with it today. This is a powerful foundation for beginning to think about higher education innovation. When we see how much things changed, it can give us the composition to consider future changes as well.
As we build a more accurate understanding of where we’ve come from, it also becomes important to have a richer understanding of where we are today. That involves reading about, visiting, interviewing, and observing what is similar and distinct about the many higher education institutions today. In fact, I even stretch myself to look well beyond higher education. I want to see how teaching and learning looks in early childhood centers, diverse K-12 contexts, corporate training, the growing market of educational products and services online, the uncollege movement, and more. Each of these might just spark a new idea or give me a sense of new possibilities for my own organization.
Of course, there is a wealth of diversity just in higher education. What does higher education look like in the United Kingdom compared to the United States? What about how things function at community and technical colleges, elite schools, flagship state schools, liberal arts colleges, colleges with and without tenure, and the many colleges sometimes placed into the alternative education category like Goddard, Bennington, Antioch College, Reed College, Shimer College, Sarah Lawrence, Evergreen State University, and the newcomer Minerva? What about different for-profit higher education institutions like Capella, American Public University, Devry, Bryant and Stratton, Strayer University and the University of Phoenix? I’m not suggesting these specific schools above others. I’m just demonstrating the wealth of possibilities available to those who are willing to look. The more we learn about these different models, their benefits and limitations, the more we become informed about the possibilities.
Of course, I could go on to talk about the value of staying current on the scholarly texts, journals and conferences in higher education too; not to mention hundreds of excellent blogs and online sources that profile current and emerging trends. The fact is, if we are in higher education leadership, it is a calling to get deeply informed about the broader world of higher education, its rich diversity, and the options available to us. That allows us to clarify who we are, who we are not, and who we want to be in the future.
With the growing popularity of ancillary educational products including microdegrees, minicourses, certificate programs, training initiatives and corporate partnerships, do you expect to see traditionally tiered degree tracks (bachelor’s, master’s, etc.) diminish in appeal (or cost)?
I do. I’ll go even further. I want to help make that happen. I just read an article the other day suggesting that, by 2015, we will have a shortage of 11 million college graduates needed to fill positions that currently require a college degree. I don’t think traditional higher education institutions (and I include traditional online programs when I use that term) can meet this need. The idea of a full-time, traditional, residential undergraduate student who doesn’t have a family or full-time job is already the minority. I think that we (as a nation) need to start thinking about helping to create greater acceptance of alternate routes to job readiness.
Even as a professor and higher education administrator, I want to hand more power and control to these learners, giving them more options than ever before; options ranging in format, cost, and the like. I expect that, to even meet the workforce needs (and college is about more than just workforce development), we will need to embrace new models for ongoing learning. Part of that in the U.S. will probably be at least a publicly funded, tuition-free option for community college, many even tuition-free bachelor’s degrees; but I don’t think that is enough to address all needs.
In the past, many thought of the sequence as 1) go to college, then 2) get a job. Yet, that has never been the majority route. In the future, we will see that; but we will also other common sequences. We will see 1) get an entry-level job, 2) then the employer pays for your ongoing education, thus preparing you for promotions on the job. Or, you might start in a shorter educational program (like Udacity’s nanodegrees), get a job based on that, and continue your education through degree programs, training provided by the employer, open online learning resources, self-study, or a combination of those options. We will also see new ways for people to choose among many routes to demonstrate competence. Once they do that, they earn a credential that provides access to new employment.
Do you foresee any problems resulting from students and employers taking steps to grow student/trainee competencies outside of — or in addition to — the traditional degree model?
I see great value in the college experience. I learned so much from my own experience and that goes well beyond job preparation. That will remain valuable for some, but as I already noted, that isn’t the norm today and it will not be in the future. Yes, there are affordances and limitations to the training and education outside of college. There will always be affordances and limitations, benefits and drawbacks, even good and bad, just as those exist for the more traditional college track. This is why much of my writing and research more recently is about empowering people to have a deep sense of agency and capacity as self-directed learners.
That is the core literacy of the 21st and 22nd century. If you don’t have the capacity for self-directed learning, you are at a huge disadvantage in a connected world. So, for me, these changes are coming…they’ve already come in some fields like computer science. If we want to do what is best for future and current learners in these new formats, I really think we need to all figure out how we can help them be the best learners possible and to develop those mindsets and skill sets that will allow them to be wise and effective in this new landscape. Without that, there will definitely be new winners and losers. It may be idealistic, but I want to figure out how to have as many winners as possible as these changes come about.
When we really think about it, if we have a robust set of criteria that people need to meet to demonstrate competence, who cares the pathway they took to become competent? I see a future of multiple pathways to the same credential or destination. At least, that is what I hope to help make a reality.
