<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bill Bowen&#8217;s blind spot.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://moreorlessbunk.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/bill-bowens-blind-spot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://moreorlessbunk.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/bill-bowens-blind-spot/</link>
	<description>&#34;History is more or less bunk.&#34; - Henry Ford, 25 May 1916.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 20:55:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Contingent Cassandra</title>
		<link>http://moreorlessbunk.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/bill-bowens-blind-spot/#comment-5129</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Contingent Cassandra]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moreorlessbunk.wordpress.com/?p=8855#comment-5129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I, too, am ambivalent about Bowen.  I&#039;m another member of the Ph.D. cohort funded in part by fellowships based on the predictions of the Bowen report (which must have been floating around in some form a few years before 1989, since I started grad school in &#039;87).  It was, in many ways, a good program; based on the very small sample I know (my own grad school classmates, including those in other disciplines, and a few at other schools), I&#039;d say the Mellon foundation (or whoever did the selection for them) did a good job of picking people who were genuinely dedicated to both teaching and scholarship, and interested in contributing to and eventually shaping the future of higher education.  In the first months of grad school, I managed to become friends with a number of other Mellon fellows before learning they were Mellon fellows, simply because they were kindred spirits (the one person who sought me out on the basis of being a fellow fellow, on the other hand, I didn&#039;t much like).  However, as I&#039;ve watched members of my circle land in contingent jobs, or drift away from academia altogether (albeit to do other interesting and useful things), I&#039;ve wondered about  what the selectors misjudged, not only about the future shape of the academy, but also about who would be most likely to succeed (or at least end up with a both a reasonably secure, satisfactory job and in a position to exert some influence on the future shape of things) in that future.  

I also heard Bowen speak on _The Shape of the River_ several years ago, and thought that sounded like good and important work  (and I didn&#039;t know about his role in funding JSTOR, but yes, that&#039;s a huge contribution to the scholarly enterprise).  

I haven&#039;t read the Stanford lectures yet (though I will), but it seems to me that in the passage above Bowen is confusing development of a workable course platform, which probably will happen in a number of places, but eventually settle down to a limited number of possibilities (much in the way computer software and/or operating systems have), and development and running of a course, which is, of course, the labor-intensive part -- and the part where skilled laborers dedicated to a particular institution and its students (or at least a particular set of students with some similarities in current educational status and needs) make a real difference.   

By the way, on that subject, Noliwe Rooks had some useful things to say on  yesterday&#039;s &quot;to the Point&quot; discussion of MOOCs (yes, yet another one; I wouldn&#039;t have listened if I hadn&#039;t been in the car, but I&#039;m glad I did): http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp121126college_reinvented_i .  Basically, her point was that the students most likely to benefit from technologically-delivered and/or enhanced education are those who are already doing well, and are ready for greater enrichment (she didn&#039;t put it this way, but I&#039;d say those who have already learned how to learn).  Students who are still struggling to get their academic feet under them benefit more from hands-on, bricks-and-mortar-based approaches.  One of the other guests then, of course, brought up the idea of showing MOOC content to community college students in a flipped-classroom format, with class time taken up by teacher-student interaction. But at that point, the MOOC isn&#039;t the class, it&#039;s a multimedia textbook (which would be just fine, but not labor/cost-saving).  And undoubtedly the most effective MOOC-based class of that sort would be one in which the actual teachers selected among, rearranged, repurposed, etc., MOOC content, and added some of their own exercises, adapted to their particular student population.  In short, you need actual teachers, which is what Bates is getting at.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, too, am ambivalent about Bowen.  I&#8217;m another member of the Ph.D. cohort funded in part by fellowships based on the predictions of the Bowen report (which must have been floating around in some form a few years before 1989, since I started grad school in &#8217;87).  It was, in many ways, a good program; based on the very small sample I know (my own grad school classmates, including those in other disciplines, and a few at other schools), I&#8217;d say the Mellon foundation (or whoever did the selection for them) did a good job of picking people who were genuinely dedicated to both teaching and scholarship, and interested in contributing to and eventually shaping the future of higher education.  In the first months of grad school, I managed to become friends with a number of other Mellon fellows before learning they were Mellon fellows, simply because they were kindred spirits (the one person who sought me out on the basis of being a fellow fellow, on the other hand, I didn&#8217;t much like).  However, as I&#8217;ve watched members of my circle land in contingent jobs, or drift away from academia altogether (albeit to do other interesting and useful things), I&#8217;ve wondered about  what the selectors misjudged, not only about the future shape of the academy, but also about who would be most likely to succeed (or at least end up with a both a reasonably secure, satisfactory job and in a position to exert some influence on the future shape of things) in that future.  </p>
<p>I also heard Bowen speak on _The Shape of the River_ several years ago, and thought that sounded like good and important work  (and I didn&#8217;t know about his role in funding JSTOR, but yes, that&#8217;s a huge contribution to the scholarly enterprise).  </p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t read the Stanford lectures yet (though I will), but it seems to me that in the passage above Bowen is confusing development of a workable course platform, which probably will happen in a number of places, but eventually settle down to a limited number of possibilities (much in the way computer software and/or operating systems have), and development and running of a course, which is, of course, the labor-intensive part &#8212; and the part where skilled laborers dedicated to a particular institution and its students (or at least a particular set of students with some similarities in current educational status and needs) make a real difference.   </p>
<p>By the way, on that subject, Noliwe Rooks had some useful things to say on  yesterday&#8217;s &#8220;to the Point&#8221; discussion of MOOCs (yes, yet another one; I wouldn&#8217;t have listened if I hadn&#8217;t been in the car, but I&#8217;m glad I did): <a href="http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp121126college_reinvented_i" rel="nofollow">http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp121126college_reinvented_i</a> .  Basically, her point was that the students most likely to benefit from technologically-delivered and/or enhanced education are those who are already doing well, and are ready for greater enrichment (she didn&#8217;t put it this way, but I&#8217;d say those who have already learned how to learn).  Students who are still struggling to get their academic feet under them benefit more from hands-on, bricks-and-mortar-based approaches.  One of the other guests then, of course, brought up the idea of showing MOOC content to community college students in a flipped-classroom format, with class time taken up by teacher-student interaction. But at that point, the MOOC isn&#8217;t the class, it&#8217;s a multimedia textbook (which would be just fine, but not labor/cost-saving).  And undoubtedly the most effective MOOC-based class of that sort would be one in which the actual teachers selected among, rearranged, repurposed, etc., MOOC content, and added some of their own exercises, adapted to their particular student population.  In short, you need actual teachers, which is what Bates is getting at.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
