The Educational paradigm shift part 1: building a layer on top of single universities

Universities have been around for 1000 years, it is time for the next level of education, moving beyond single universities. New learning architectures are being build, a paradigm shift is happening as course development needs to be made more efficient in keeping pace with sector innovation. This means, new alliances need to be setup across universities (see further below) and new pedagogies need to be installed (see part 2 later). This demand for change has been around for 10 years, but it seems change is upon us. Will the change do us all good?

Old and still here

The university of Bologna was founded in 1088 A.D. and is considered the oldest university in the world. Oxford university was founded not long after that and gradually more universities emerged. Their model was profitable, as you can see as these universities stood the test of time. But is there model still relevant today? Do universities deliver top employees, ready for the higher end job market? No. What they can do, is deliver strong research and evidence-based results. But researchers are only a small part of everyone graduating from university. So when it comes to teaching students to work in non-university sectors, they fail. 

While jobs change, curricula seldomn adjust rapidly

This is due to the rapid change of job profiles, emerging new sectors, innovation overall... no rigid university curriculum can stay on top of rapid change. There is too much specialization involved and the capacity to change on the go as innovation reshapes a sector (e.g. AI embedding affecting all sectors).  

It is a tough goal to ensure that any student coming in for a four year learning journey, will have learned the most innovative, timely training. This becomes even more difficult if we consider the needs of new jobs, that are often situated between different 'known' disciplines (but of course AI can be used to train people for future jobs, hence using innovation to prepare for innovation). But any Utopian or Distopian believes aside, universities in their single, ivory towers are no longer ready to deliver the best employees for these changing times. 

Merging knowledge and specialize

The dominant form always wins, we know this since the Pullitzer prize winning book of Jared Diamond, called "Guns, Germs and Steel". Unfortunately, dominance is seldom the highest quality, it is simply the most agile, the best equiped. Quality always subserves quantity and technological lead (feel free to find examples, there are many! My preferred one is VHS versus Betamax). 

Single universities cannot compete with innovation. They lack speed and specialization. Engineering courses for instance, almost every big university has them.... this is clearly not an efficient use of resources nor course development. Now if a set of universities combines forces, each one of these universities can specialize in one particular area, ensure course relevance and speed due to this specialization (you don't need to update all engineering courses, only your own segment). 10 universities in the USA have started such a collaboration (see Big Ten Academic Alliance post referring to online courses). This is only the start of course, but you can see that working together will save money and human resources, while at the same time enable more rapid course development as innovations are rolled out. As part of such a university network, each partner can now focus on one particular area. 

More than graduates and beyond course degrees

Of course, this type of developing innovation-paced courses, also opens the door for more than students, as professionals will need to stay on top of their field as well. This means it is no longer about curricula and formal courses within a single or joined university to get a degree. With professional learners taking up parts of a degree course, certificatoin needs to become modular. This means certificatoin that is both formal and informal, as well as part of a micro-certification becomes necessary. Look at the Microbol European Certification program that offers a certification across universities (btw nice keynote on the subject can be seen here as part of the virtual EDEN conference September 2020). 

In the next few years many universities will merge to stay afloat and become more competitive. This also means that they will need to choose which main language they will speak with their students ... this again will lead to a more dominant educational language... if I push aside the impact on educational divides ... I guess I concur with Cheryl Crow: "A change will do U good". 

#Blockchain in #learning exploring for #validation of lifelonglearning #certification

This is the first part of a series on Blockchain for Learning posts. In this post I am giving my (current) overview of Blockchain options from industry, a second post will focus more on the academic side (including impact on universities), and I will add a philosophical post on it as well).

Background and project

As I am working on the learning bit of the skills 3.0 project (a multi-disciplinary project combining AI, HR, learning and learning certification, see basic slides here), I have been gathering some Blockchain-for-Learning solutions as well (exploring options before adding them to the project slides). 

Main idea for using Blockchain (open or closed) for learning

What I am looking for is a stackable certification solution, which blockchain for learning or education can provide. This stackable way of organising or linking learning could enable a validated, personalized certification procedure covering both formal learning (e.g. certification, degrees, micro-credits) and informal learning (e.g. badges, skills, experiences). Practically: each learner has a learning wallet or portfolio, and you - as a learner - can add each learning step as you 'earn' it and you are issued a certificate/badge of what you learned by a learning authority/individual/group).  

Why is this useful?

Remember how each one of us has to give proof of learning whenever we want to change jobs, or when HR sets up these profiles that are so complex, that you wonder whether you will ever fit in? Well, in an ideal world this blockchain-for-learning solution might shed some light on both your formal credits, as well as your experiences throughout life and even your emerging interests (e.g. blockchain basics). It is a bit like a LifeLongLearning Accreditation On Steroids. 

So the blocks of this blockchain would be all instances where you learn, this could be study hours, but also workshops, reading, interactions with experts, papers, patents, peer groups of practitioners ... 
The idea is to support personalized learning when people are reskilling or upskilling their competencies and knowledge and adding a layer to it so their training and learning can be certified in a secure and digital fashion. 

Its technology, so there are heated debates

With all new technology, the heated debates emerge as well: what is the best, what are the upsides, who is a true believer, who is a true cynic... all of this I keep for a post later on this month. For now, just to give an idea, I am focusing on what is out there. Which is more than I had imagined. 

Blockchain you say? 

Any transaction between different parties where the transactions need to be validated, and they are distributed across locations fit the blockchain technology. The data is distributed over a massive amount of people, which would make tracking all the transactions very complex if done manually. Blockchain automates these transactions, and in many cases, they use distributed databases, as well as smart contracts to enable transactions. A smart contract is a computer protocol intended to digitally facilitate, verify, or enforce the negotiation or performance of a contract. Smart contracts allow the performance of credible transactions without third parties. These transactions are trackable and irreversible (it being irreversible is one of the topics of debate, for instance, even if you are the author, you cannot change the transaction... so how does this fit in with Personal Data?). However, there is one important factor: the learner should be the one in charge of who can see what from his 'learning experiences and certification', which means she can give or revoke access to personal records. 

A great white paper on it (53 pages), called My Skills Project, written by John Casey from City of Glasgow College is a good read to get acquinted with blockchain for learning, focusing on vocational training (great read!). 

Some features that I feel are key:

• Privacy (well, yes)
• Learner is the owner of all data (others might be as well, but intermittent, while the learner is the owner of all their data. Right to be forgotten is also important, but seems difficult at this point - says my colleague Frederik who knows more about blockchain tech).
• mobile first (you would think this is a given, but ... it still is not).
• Standardization (otherwise it becomes difficult to achieve lifelong learning traceability)
• Bridging formal and informal: this demands a variety of validated certification, including micro-credits, open badges and the like.

Giving some examples of products out there or in progress

Chainscript demo by Phil Komarny (Chainscript from SalesForce): in just 5 minutes Phil gives an overview and live (!) demo of the chainscript on mobile (oh yes!).

SmartDegrees: a mobile tool developed in Spain (the app already exists and has been rolled out in some Spanish Universities, a.o. Carlos III in Madrid). Because this solution seems (at least) a good starting point, I have a meeting with one of its people next week (looks promising, you can see a 2-minute video of what smartDegrees does here, but only in Spanish at the moment). 

A great comprehensive overview of Blockchain overall and with practical implementations in education comes from the Open University (UK), which looks at their plans for smart contracts, micro-accreditation, open badges, ... great 9-minute video. It is John Domingue (director of KMI at the OU) who speaks, and he has just been awarded the fellowship of the British Blockchain Association. 

LearningMachine: from MIT lab, and the good old W3C credentials community group, LearningMachine emerged. This is a full product in market, fully self-sovereign identity. But not sure how open they are to non-classic accreditation, although their video does include 'skills equivalencies' but not sure of the peer recommendations or fully informal learning options. They seem to be more focused on formal education (from government, university, companies). Their 2-minute mobile app can be seen in action here.

Standard-oriented information
CIMEA is the Italian Blockchain for qualifications standard. Their certification wallet service is called Diplo Me, which is still under construction.

DigiCerts is the German counterpart for Blockchain certification standards.

Blockcerts, subtitled "the open standard for blockchain certificates" is a service connected to Learning Machine, and also works towards a standard in an Alliance of major universities (which makes it feel mostly formal in certification). 

Europe is developing a standard embedded in its Digital Education Action Plan, called "framework for digitally-signed credentials". (pdf-document) A mostly theoretical approach, but of interest as it will be linked to Europass and such.

And of course the laudable Open Badges, used by multiple organisations (e.g. The Open University) to certify informal learning (I love this one, but it is of course going against the dominant system).

Some additional sources

Accredible is another, with UK, Netherlands and USA offices. They work across LMS systems, so they seem more LMS oriented. A lot of reading to get the idea, but nice reading. This is more like a certification publisher, not an active certification wallet option. 

The American, Public University system has blockchain lined up as well, but I could not find a bigger description of their project. 

Blockchain is a hot topic, so there is a multitude of courses out there, but one that seems to specialize is the Blockchain Training Alliance . They do not seem to offer specific Blockchain products though.

There are also some standards being developed (nice to keep in mind when wanting to use blockchain in a later stage):

Then there are a couple of blockchain companies who haven't developed a Blockchain for learning solution, but seem to be eager to explore the field:

T-mining (Belgium) - working with Frederik to explore which solution would fit my need best, great people to talk to. 

Wallet services 

Learnovate (Ireland, connected to Trinity College Dublin), wrote a piece about it here.

Looking forward to getting a more in-depth look at these, and considering some of the more academic and philosophic ideas paralleling this technology. If you know of any other solutions, feel free to add them as a comment, or let me know. 

(picture from OpenBlockChain from UK)

#OEB15 open badges by @mediendidaktik

Great presentation by Ilona Buchem on using open badges for individuals and organisations. Ilona knows how to concentrate a bundle of information in nice small yet very useful bits.

Open Badges for Individuals and Organisations from Ilona Buchem

#nanodegree #badges #lifelong learning thoughts

The new Udacity and AT&T initiative rolling out nanodegrees for people who follow specific MOOC or online courses in general has a logical and nice ring to it. The idea is simple: for all learners following a course successfully (= as indicated by the institute/corporation designing the course and its interactions/assignments/tasks), a nanodegree can be earned that illustrate immediate job skills and knowledge. This earning does cost: 200 $ per month (courses on average 6 - 12 months), but it is much cheaper then a college degree. As such Udacity goes for the corporate MOOC creation which (in part) addresses training people for specific jobs through MOOC. Smart move of course from Udacity to corner the more entrepreneurial need job/training market. And although other MOOC providers, such as Coursera do have similar tracks (i.e. specializations), Udacity seems to be a fore runner for this type of MOOCs.

Less discrimination?
A definite bonus of this approach is that companies indicate niches in their workforce, resulting in courses that will indeed develop a capable learner into a potential professional for the job. The fact that the course offered is right on target of the job, also saves time (and costs) for all involved. And, the best learners come out of it based on their actual delivery, so selection based on color, race, ability might fade as a result (yes, utopia). And the fact that nanodegrees are also linked with scholarships to non-profit organizations is a bonus as well. It feels like really good news. In Europe you have entrepreneurial schools popping up, who listen to the industry to find out were there is a gap in the job market and offer courses to alleviate these gaps (iMinds academy is one).

Jobs that will not make it into the future?
So I was hopeful, good initiative to get people into jobs. But then my critical mind set in and suggested some possible downsides.
I can see how many people (increased employment) might enter a contest to get jobs: the best MOOC learners get the position. And those who would go for these jobs - when reading the articles on the nanodegree from NY Times, seem to be the less financially secure. This means there is another divide and conquer tactic being set loose on an already sensitive population. And it would seem to me, that if a job can be learned in a fixed amount of time, it will be one of those jobs that vanish in the near future due to automation, Harold Jarche wrote on the subject of automation on several occasions (but in spite of this critique my other positive brain tells me: yes, but in the meantime people will gain some money in the process, that is good, any income enhances self-esteem, increases economic stability, will lift others as well).

The idea fits in with what Mozilla started using open badges to allow informal certification to be offered when completing certain learning tasks or paths. But then again open badges can be provided for free, and tailored to any need or vision.

Industrial era training approach?
While thinking it over and over again, I cannot seem to shake the feeling that the concept of nanodegree is much more a training following the industrial era (but I can completely miss the ball here, as the courses are still being constructed and might well be creative in their pedagogical approach), but it is the teacher (industry) who offer a fixed set of content and tasks (cfr old books and assignments) to learn to pass one specific set of tasks. So although this is indeed a new approach, purely on the basis of the corporate/job specific angle, it does sound like old school pedagogy).

Concern added by Rebecca Hogue on shift employers need to pay their training
After reading this blogpost Rebecca added a relevant remark: "One issue I see with this model is that this specialized industry specific training used to be paid for by companies. It used to be that you would be hired for your general skills, and the company would pay you to be trained in the specific skills that they needed. What I see here is an opportunity for the companies to stop paying to have their employees trained in the specific skills they need, and push that cost of business to the employees themselves". 
And those employees would not even be sure that they would actually be employed, even after attempting (and paying) several nanodegrees out of their own pocket. Thanks Rebecca!

Creativity and replacing more expensive workers?
From an economic point of view, there is this automation risk. Though I admit, first nanodegrees seem to have an openness towards creativity as front-end/back-end web developer come into mind, but of course not sure what is really meant by that or how open/creative this is envisioned. But there is more, once these types of courses become more mainstream, they might result in a discrimination of those who cannot afford the courses, and thus getting into a more difficult predicament.

Older workforce?
The first nanodegrees seem to target entry-level jobs, but there might be strategies being worked out for higher level jobs as well (digital skills, networked professionals). What about older workers? Is there a risk of more experienced workers being replaced by on-the-job-focused-less-expensive workers? If so, how to deal with that?

Copying societal global North as model?
And, if the jobs are provided by profit, then they are part of a chosen, institutionalized societal pattern, which always risks increasing those digital divides that already exist in that society. Additionally, it is a model coming from the global North, which means it has a colonial ring to it, and potentially transforms those norms and ways of working over onto other areas on the globe. All of us need to work for those, in jobs that are existing (yet possibly be extinct through automation soon).

Do I like the concept of nanodegrees: of course! but it is always nice to ponder, reflect and try and figure out potential pitfalls as well.