On the Horizon Preparing for the future of higher education Tashfeen Ahmad
Article information:
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
To cite this document: Tashfeen Ahmad , (2015),"Preparing for the future of higher education", On the Horizon, Vol. 23 Iss 4 pp. 323 - 330 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-06-2015-0029 Downloaded on: 26 November 2015, At: 13:55 (PT) References: this document contains references to 52 other documents. To copy this document:
[email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 69 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Khushboo Raina, Puja Khatri, (2015),"Faculty engagement in higher education: prospects and areas of research", On the Horizon, Vol. 23 Iss 4 pp. 285-308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-03-2015-0011 Tom P. Abeles, (2015),"The challenge of personalized education on the institution of higher education", On the Horizon, Vol. 23 Iss 4 pp. 273-276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-08-2015-0056 Takalani Eric Mudzanani, (2015),"Beyond storing old stuff: analysing the socio-economic value of museums", On the Horizon, Vol. 23 Iss 4 pp. 331-338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-07-2015-0032
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:607647 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Preparing for the future of higher education
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Tashfeen Ahmad
Tashfeen Ahmad is based at the Department of Social Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica.
Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to assist lecturers, universities and their administrators in preparing for the evolving future of higher education. Disruptive innovations in higher education delivery, with the internet as a driver, are creating potential benefits and challenges for traditional service providers. This paper will reflect on how academics should evolve, in the age of the internet, and maximize the benefits of all stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach – This opinion piece emerged after reviewing the latest research and best practices which can improve higher education delivery. Findings – Significant benefits and opportunities can be unlocked if educators apply and incorporate new learning styles and practices. While the pace and momentum is uncertain, this paper re-confirms that disruptive technologies will lead to inevitable changes in higher education. Technology and knowledge have become more accessible and transferable irrespective of location. It is therefore imperative that educational stakeholders seize the opportunity to adjust their methodology and delivery approaches to remain relevant and maintain their value proposition. Originality/value – Educators should rethink how they deliver education, as the traditional model evolves. This paper offers a proposal to navigate the challenges ahead. Keywords Best practices, Higher education, Educators, Disruption, Future of education, University administrators Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction Internet’s “disruptive power” has altered our lives in significant ways, and it has changed “how” and “where” we access information. Access to Internet and mobile devices has increased our ability to engage in informal education from anywhere at our convenient time (Sharples, 2007). This “here and now” learning has enabled knowledge, information and content access, flexible and convenient (Carr, 2012; Hill, 2012; Lucas, 2014) irrespective of location (Martin and Ertzberger, 2013).
After thanking God, the most beneficent and the most merciful, the author thanks his family, friends and mentors for their heartfelt assistance.
DOI 10.1108/OTH-06-2015-0029
This convenient access has opened avenues of disruption to traditional ways of learning, as evidenced through distance learning, open universities, online learning, e-learning and open educational resources (Altbach et al., 2010; Carey, 2012; Castellano, 2014; King and Sen, 2013; Yuan et al., 2008). Furthermore, the emergence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is growing in popularity, and some scholars suggest that MOOCs will severely “unbundle” (Shirky, 2012), “undermine” (Mazoue, 2013), destroy (Harden, 2013), “fragment” (Irvine et al., 2013) and replace traditional higher education models. It is never easy to predict future, but as teaching methods evolve in an online environment, it is certain that university management’s traditional role will also evolve.
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015, pp. 323-330, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1074-8121 ON THE HORIZON
PAGE 323
Disruptive innovation as a framework Christensen’s theory of “disruptive innovation” provides a comprehensive framework in explaining how advances in new technology, driven by the Internet, can spur alternative products and services, thereby posing threats to existing higher education institutions (Bower and Christensen, 1995). Such threats lies not in the technology itself but rather in the creation of alternative educational services geared towards meeting the needs of “new learners” (Christensen et al., 2011). In some cases, the use of technology has failed to significantly disrupt the existing educational structure primarily due to shortcomings in delivering a superior learning experience to existing students. However, with decreasing costs and pace of technology advances, the threat of disruption increases.
What this means for universities
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
As the threat of disruption increases, universities should rethink the way they work. Why a university would want to teach basic finance course when a student can take that course, online, from the best in the world? When a university does not have the best teacher available for what they are teaching, the student should use Internet and access the best. Universities should encourage students to learn the basics of the course from the best they can find over the Internet, under their teacher’s guidance, and then come to the class for discussion and interaction. Students are already using Khan Academy to learn basic maths, science, economics and finance concepts which can be learned online. Moving lecturing online and using valuable face-to-face student– teacher time on discussions is what this disruption offers. Failure to acknowledge and respond to this disruption will deprive the universities to reach the millions they can, in this age of Internet. The majority of universities which do not acknowledge this change might not remain relevant in the future, as students learning behaviours change and they seek more learning online. This presents a link between organizational change and technology which demonstrates the need for institutions to become “change-resilient organizations” by continuously improving delivery methods, as technology improves (Hamel and Valikangas, 2003; Taylor, 2001). Weller et al. (2013) applies this to higher education by advancing a “resilience model” which shows that only those capable of adapting to technology and absorbing changes by identifying practices and methods, which require change, while retaining those which work, are more likely to keep their structures intact. However, debate continues as to whether higher education institutions should respond to technology changes or major disruption in traditional higher education model is just a hype and myth (Carey, 2015; Daniel, 2012).
Threat to university management’s traditional role One problem is that disruptive technologies are threatening higher education leaders in existing education markets because it can force them to change their way of working. This change can be so disruptive that it can cost them their jobs. Yuan and Powell (2013a, 2013b) and Mazoue (2013) describe this “disruption” to the traditional higher education model as essentially a threat to its costly business model. The central question is whether such disruptors signal a fundamental change in business models which would pose significant threat to existing models of providing higher education. Such disruption is resulting in a shifting of costs from students to institutions (Lawton and Katsomitros, 2012). In many cases, free online access is driving the cost of acquiring knowledge down to zero and threatening traditional models, forcing higher education institutions to revamp their business models to survive. However, there remains resistance to change which can hinder the healthy evolution of higher education, in this age of the Internet.
PAGE 324 ON THE HORIZON
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015
Many reasons account for this resistance. Fear, anxiety and a lack of confidence associated with use of new technologies in higher education are seen as basic obstacles especially for older teachers (Kotrlik and Redmann, 2009a; Kotrlik and Redmann, 2009b; Larbi-Apau and Mosley, 2012). In addition, resource constraints, workload and lack of technical expertise in developing new quality courses are important factors for maintaining traditional methods (Keengwe et al., 2009; Keengwe and Kidd, 2010; Lorenzetti, 2004). Furthermore, there are issues related to how job security, compensation, tenure, promotion and career advancement levels are to be maintained in the context of increasing use of technology in the classroom (Brogden and Couros, 2002; Grosse, 2004).
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Vested interests make stakeholders in higher education view the traditional model as a lucrative monopoly, especially in harsh economic environments. Many are concerned how changes will affect entrenched interests ranging from public or state financing, tuition fees, publishing materials and text-book industry, research and intellectual property rights (Grajeck, 2013).
Social, cultural and institutional shaping of technology Social and cultural values can influence an individual’s and institution’s technology adoption (Liu, 2011). As technology makes tremendous progress, its influence on all aspects of our life has increased. Therefore, how technology is shaping our lifestyles will help us in preparing for the future. The study of technology has immediate relevance to education and how it is delivered. Noted Columbia University professor of sociology H.F. Cline suggests that higher education is seen as one of the most “resistant social institutions ever created” ingrained in instructional methods of teaching and very slow to adapt to the changing realities of technology (Anderson et al., 2012). Therefore, I suggest that educators unlearn their teaching practices in traditional classroom model and integrate information and communication technology (ICT) in their teaching, to benefit from endless future opportunities. In the future where software can map an individual’s knowledge and suggest a unique lesson plan, I propose that educators must study modern technologies which afford exciting avenues for effective teaching and improved engagement with students.
Now and the future Some institutions have begun to respond to this proposal, for example, by incorporating MOOC courses into their traditional programs. Ivy League institutions, such as Stanford, Penn, Princeton, Harvard, MIT and others, now collaborate with MOOC providers such as Coursea, edX and Udacity to provide courses (Bates, 2013a, 2013b; Carr, 2012; Lewin, 2012; Lewin, 2013; Stripling, 2012). These are early days yet, as experimentation with MOOCs has presented a number of glaring challenges which require on-going attention such as adequate course structure and management, venture funding and financing to ensure financial viability and recognition (Milheim, 2013). In addition, new and alternative providers are generating innovative services which, if tapped by teachers, will yield distinct advantages. These are associated with the provision of new technology platforms, online content and knowledge and creative educational evaluation programs. The use of technology platforms which include Web 2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis and social networking sites), digital and mobile support devices and virtual and augmented environments can lead to increased efficiencies in teaching styles and techniques and
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015
ON THE HORIZON
PAGE 325
promote enriched learning experience. Ahmad (2015) is using wikis for the first time at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica, and reaping these benefits. In the future, I might want to explore some benefits of virtual and augmented reality (AR) environments in my class which can facilitate motivation, stimulation and reinforcement of student learning by the use of interactive, visual and exploring techniques, e.g. three-dimensional (3D) images and workspaces (Guiterez and Fernandez, 2014). This technology is still new and there are currently challenges with the implementation of mobile AR. Jamali et al. (2014) makes it clear that attention must be directed at the requirements needed for mobile AR to be used effectively such as mobile learning interfaces and interactions as crucial to “deliver learning activities in higher education”. A detailed study of augmented reality platform in educational settings (Bacca et al., 2014) during the 10-year period (2003-2013) confirms its increasing use in higher education. This study confirmed that it remains a promising platform for supporting technology-enhanced learning in higher education.
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Other channels Networking sites such as Twitter can promote the growth of professional online communities (Cho et al., 2013), enhance collaboration (Burden, 2010), provide access for strong quality content and knowledge resources where teachers can share experiences and practices (Cho et al., 2013). This makes them “connected” educators, (NussbaumBeach and Hall, 2012) equipped with real-time information sharing capabilities to hone and improve their teaching methods. New and innovative means of evaluating and measuring student performance are also providing opportunities for educational institutions to partner with and explore additional revenue generating methods. Credential and evaluation services are increasingly used by higher education institutions in conjunction with the traditional methods of financing via tuition fees and public funding. Experimenting with digital certification, digital badges and transcript credentials for online courses are seen as viable means of obtaining revenue (Alstete, 2014; Carey, 2015). However, uncertainty remains whether this will pose serious threat to fundamental financing model of traditional campuses. Presently, access to online courses at lower or zero cost is available. A more serious development would be transfer of credit earned from such courses towards a degree from recognized institutions (Mazoue, 2013). With regards to the traditional higher education system, the proliferation of the Internet has led to greater and expanded access to content via e-learning and online delivery mechanisms. The top four benefits for higher education institutions as cited by Bichsel’s (2013) comprehensive work on The State of E-Learning in Higher Education, Educause, are the potential to increase revenue, grow enrolment, enhance the institution’s reputation and opportunities to streamline its curricula. This study emphasized that of these, the biggest advantage still remains its potential to significantly increase new student enrolment across borders because of its “anywhere anytime” access. However, I would mention that the potential for e-learning, distance and open campus modes of learning and teaching are not devoid of weaknesses and concerns. Nevertheless, I feel that disruptors will continue to evolve higher education at multiple levels which can forever change teachers’ modes of delivery. In the future, traditional method of learning may evolve to the point where academics role may become increasingly displaced, and they are viewed more as guides than lecturers. However, educators have some time to plan and prepare for that future before graduate school learning experience is fully replicated online.
PAGE 326 ON THE HORIZON
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015
How academics should evolve? There is a need to prepare academics, as higher education evolves in the age of Internet. This need is amplified on many fronts, and here are some suggestions which can improve higher education delivery. First, academics need to envision students and teachers as learning partners. Fullan (2013) makes the point that technology is disrupting and causing a rift between students and teachers, making it imperative that a new pedagogy of learning be used, one which encourages student learning by utilizing technology that is efficient, easy to access and use and which can be applied to solve real world problems.
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Second, academics need to constantly incorporate the teachers’ purpose for using new technology platforms in their professional growth such as Web 2.0 technologies, e.g. twitter and social networking. Cho et al. (2013) draws a clear distinction between the “materiality” (functions of a platform) and “socio-materiality” (motivations and interactions) and the appreciation that social factors are far more important than technology itself, in creating real change in higher education. Third, academics should facilitate learning of twenty-first century employability skills such as, communication, collaboration, creativity, through searching, retrieving and critically evaluating information rather than just lecturing on a topic (Keengwe and Kidd, 2010). This could be achieved by increasing the use of the most up-to-date technology platforms as previously discussed which enhances group and creative learning on the one hand, but can also has flexibility for use in self- centred student learning. Higher education institutions and educators should explore alternative paths outside the traditional educational system to provide unique learning experiences which are linked to training, skills and competencies applicable for the workplace. This is even more critical, as students are becoming more active agents and taking responsibility for their learning. Indeed, there is a growing shift towards student-centred learning with the focus on inquiry-based modes of learning and acquiring skills to adapt and compete in the twenty-first century world place. Competency-based education (CBE) and inquiry-based learning have become the new buzz words in student-centred learning (Hill, 2012; Freidman, 2013). CBE provides the students with the opportunity to move through their classes determining their own pace. Battushig Myanganbayar is one of many students who finished online MIT courses with distinction. He completed this course at the age of 15 from his school in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, and a year later, he went to MIT (Pappano, 2013). This is the future of education where ICT has removed the borders between students and knowledge, much like the EU’s harmonized programs or what Africa calls tuning across Sub-Saharan institutions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, academics and administrators need to make these newer technology enabled initiatives an integral part of their strategic plans, specifically from a budget and financial aspect. Financial strategies must be used by universities so that they can leverage higher education resources to increase income and augment revenues. The application of budget modelling, responsibility centre management, performance-based budgeting, performance funding (Alstete, 2014) and balanced score card (Schobel and Scholey, 2012) are seen as crucial tools to be used in the strategic plans to identify and access new revenue sources.
Future research It would be worth expanding the discussion of whether new start-ups or established teaching universities will be best placed to succeed (as the same logic does not apply to the research universities, as they have an unmatched set of assets and, effectively, compete in a different sector).
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015
ON THE HORIZON
PAGE 327
Final remarks/What is the critical future Strong partnerships and responsibility sharing between educators and other stakeholders with respect to policy, processes, governance and support structures are critical for future success. Equally important is the need to incorporate newest technology platforms with face-to-face instruction to enhance and enrich the learning experience. Think of the future where software can map an individual’s knowledge and propose a unique lesson plan. Not to be overlooked is the need to properly integrate financial strategies and planning in the quest to increase enrolment and to satisfy the growing demand for lower cost higher education among various demographic groups. Significant benefits could accrue to educational institutions from this. These include financial and non-financial opportunities such as newer sources of revenues and profits, the generation of alternative and innovative services which include technology and social networking platforms, knowledge and content, accreditation and credential services, all of which serve to increase educator efficiency, enrichment, interaction and professional growth.
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Predicting future is never easy in an environment where technologies and ICTs keep on evolving at a rapid pace. However, as higher education evolves in the age of Internet, just imagine how changes such as 3D holographic imaging (Mack, 2014) and the use of “mash-up models” in AR can disrupt traditional learning and impact higher education. Such changes will inevitably affect the future of higher education. Therefore, educators must prepare now to benefit in coming decades.
References Ahmad, T. (2015), “Welcome to your resource page”, available at: https://mrtashfeen.wikispaces.com/ IBM (accessed 18 June 2015). Alstete, J. (2014), “Revenue generation strategies: leveraging higher education resources for increased income”, ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 41 No. 1. Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L.E. (2010), “Tracking a global academic revolution change”, The Magazine of Higher Learning, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 30-39. Anderson, J., Boyles, J.L. and Rainie, L. (2012), “The future impact of the internet in higher education”, Pew Research Centre, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 1-43. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R. and Graf, S.K. (2014), “Augmented reality trends in education: a systematic review of research and applications”, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 133-149. Bates, T. (2013a), “Harvard’s current thinking on MOOC’s”, available at: www.tonybates.ca/2013/02/ 14/harvards-current-thinking-on-moocs (accessed 18 June 2015). Bates, T. (2013b), “MOOC’s, MIT and magic”, available at: www.tonybates.ca/2013/06/26/moocs-mitand-magic (accessed 18 June 2015). Bower, J. and Christensen, C. (1995), “Disruptive technologies: catching the wave”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 43-53. Brogden, L.M. and Couros, A. (2002), “Contemplating the virtual campus: pedagogical and administrative considerations”, The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 22-30. Burden, K.J. (2010), “Conceptualising teachers’ professional learning with web 2.0”, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 148-161. Carey, K. (2012), “Into the future with MOOCs”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 59 No. 2, p. 29. Carey, K. (2015), “The cost of college: here’s what will really change higher education: online degrees that are seen as official”, available at: www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/upshot/true-reform-in-higher-educationwhen-online-degrees-are-seen-as-official.html?abt⫽0002&abg⫽1 (accessed 17 June 2015). Carr, N. (2012), “The crisis in higher education”, Technology Review, Vol. 115 No. 6, pp. 32-40. Castellano, S. (2014), “E-learning in higher education”, TD: Talent Development, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 64-66. Cho, V., Ro, J. and Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2013), “What twitter will and will not do: theorizing about teachers’ online professional communities”, Learning Landcapes, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 45-61.
PAGE 328 ON THE HORIZON
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., Caldera, L. and Soares, L. (2011), Disrupting College: How Disruptive Innovation can Deliver Quality and Affordability to Postsecondary Education, Innosight Institute, CA, pp. 1-62. Daniel, J. (2012), “Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility”, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1-20. Freidman, T. (2013), “The professors’ big stage”, available at: www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/opinion/ friedman-the-professors-big-stage.html (accessed 18th June 2015). Fullan, M. (2013), “The new pedagogy: students and teachers as learning partners”, Learning Landscapes, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 23-29. Grajeck, S. (2013), “Understanding what higher education needs from text-e-books”, An Educause/ Internet2 Pilot (Research Report), Educause Centre for Analysis and Research, Louisville, Co, July, available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1307/ERS1307es.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015). Grosse, C.U. (2004), “How distance learning changes faculty”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 1 No. 6.
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Gutiérrez, J. and Fernández, M. (2014), “Augmented reality environments in learning, communicational and professional contexts in higher education”, Digital Education Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 61-73. Hamel, G. and Välikangas, L. (2003), “The quest for resilience”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 9, p. 52. Harden, N. (2013), “The end of the university as we know it”, American Interest, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 54-62. Hill, P. (2012), “Online educational delivery models: a descriptive view”, Educause Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 84-97. Irvine, V., Code, J. and Richards, L. (2013), “Realigning higher education for the 21st-century learner through multi-access learning”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 172-186, available at: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/irvine_0613.htm (accessed 18 June 2015). Jamali, S., Shiratuddin, M. and Wong, K. (2014), “An overview of mobile-augmented reality in higher education”, International Journal on Recent Trends in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 229-238. Keengwe, J. and Kidd, T.T. (2010), “Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education”. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, Vol. 6 No. 2, available at: http://jolt.merlot. org/vol6no2/keengwe_0610.htm (accessed 18 June 2015). Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. and Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009), “Faculty and technology: implications for faculty training and technology leadership”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 23-28. King, G. and Sen, M. (2013), “The troubled future of colleges and universities”, PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 83-89. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512001606. Kotrlik, J.W. and Redmann, D.H. (2009a), “Analysis of teachers’ adoption of technology for use in instruction in seven career and technical education programs”, Career & Technical Education Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 47-77. Kotrlik, J.W. and Redmann, D.H. (2009b), “Technology adoption for use in instruction by secondary technology education teachers”, Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 21 No. 1. Larbi-Apau, J.A. and Moseley, J.L. (2012), “Computer attitude of teaching faculty: implications for technology-based performance in higher education”, Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 221-233. Lawton, W. and Katsomitros, A. (2012), “MOOCs and disruptive innovation: the challenge to HE business models”, available at: www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id⫽929 (accessed 18 June 2015). Lewin, T. (2012), “Public universities see familiar fight at Virginia”, available at: www.nytimes.com/ 2012/06/26/education/public-universities-see-familiar-fight-at-virginia.html (accessed 18 June 2015). Liu, S.P. (2011), “A study of mobile instant messaging adoption: within culture variation”, International Journal of Mobile Communication, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 280-297. Lucas, H. (2014), “Disrupting and transforming the university”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 32-35.
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015
ON THE HORIZON
PAGE 329
Mack, T. (2014), “Trends at work: an overview of tomorrow’s employment ecosystem”, The Futurist, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 14-19. Martin, F. and Ertzberger, J. (2013), “Here and now mobile learning: an experimental study on the use of mobile technology”, Computers & Education, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 76-85. Mazoue, J. (2013), “The MOOC model: challenging traditional education”, Educause Review, available at: www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-model-challenging-traditional-education (accessed 18 June 2015). Milheim, W.D. (2013), “Massive open online courses (MOOCs): current applications and future potential”, Educational Technology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 38-42. Nussbaum-Beach, S. and Hall, L.R. (2012), The Connected Educator: Learning and Leading in A Digital Age, Solution Tree Press, Bloomington. Pappano, L. (2013), “The boy genius of ulan bator”, available at: www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/ magazine/the-boy-genius-of-ulan-bator.html?pagewanted⫽all (accessed 22 June 2015). Schobel, K. and Scholey, C. (2012), “Balanced scorecards in education: focusing on financial strategies”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 17-28.
Downloaded by University of The West Indies at Mona At 13:55 26 November 2015 (PT)
Sharples, M. (2007), Big Issues in Mobile Learning: Report of a Workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Shirky, C. (2012), “Napster, Udacity and the academy”, available at: www.case.edu/strategicplan/ downloads/Napster-Udacity-and-the-Academy-Clay_Shirky.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015). Stripling, J. (2012), “MIT names its provost, who led online-education efforts, as New President”, Chronicle of Higher Education, available at: http://chronicle.com/article/MIT-Names-Its-Provost-Who-L ed/131896 (accessed 18 June 2015). Taylor, J.C. (2001), “The future of learning - learning for the future: shaping the transition fifth generation distance education keynote presentation”, The 20th ICDE World Conference, Düsseldorf. Weller, M. and Anderson, T. (2013), “Digital resilience in higher education”, European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 53. Yuan, L. and Powell, S. (2013a), MOOCs and Disruptive Innovation: Implications for Higher Education, Cetis Publications, Bolton Deane Road, available at: www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/MOOC s-and-disruptive-innovation%3A-Implications-for-higher-education (accessed 18 June 2015). Yuan, L. and Powell, S. (2013b), MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education, Cetis Publications, Bolton Deane Road, available at: http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667 (accessed 18 June 2015). Yuan, L., MacNeill, S. and Kraan, W. (2008), “Open educational resources – opportunities and challenges for higher education”, available at: http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2008/09/oer_briefing_paper.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).
About the author Tashfeen Ahmad expanded his understanding of psychology at Harvard University and joined the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Jamaica, in May 2013, with many years of international general management experience. He is teaching international business management, management of change, production and operations management, productivity and quality management, and his primary research interest is mobile communications. Tashfeen Ahmad can be contacted at:
[email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details:
[email protected]
PAGE 330 ON THE HORIZON
VOL. 23 NO. 4 2015