A new virus has arrived that will take your data hostage and promise to give it back if you pay a ransom
Devastating malware that makes users’ computer files unreadable until they pay a hefty ransom has begun infiltrating Australian computers after wreaking havoc in Britain and the US. The so-called “ransomware”, known asCryptoLocker, silently encrypts files on Windows computers, along with files on any connected network storage or USB devices, rendering them unreadable. Once the encryption process finishes, it tells users to pay a ransom, equivalent to between$300-600.
Although CryptoLocker itself is readily removed, files remain encrypted in a way which researchers have considered infeasible to break. Many experts say that the ransom should not be paid, but do not offer any way to recover files; others say that paying the ransom is the only way to recover files that have not been backed up.
Australian universities are warning they can do nothing to help staff whose computers are infected other than suggest they rebuild a computer from scratch.
The obvious way to protect yourself against a CryptoLocker attack is to regularly run full backups of your valuable data and then remove the drive from your computer, preferably storing it off-site.
Another is to create several online backups via free services such as Dropbox, Google Drive and Skydrivewhich usually offer versioning – and thus a way to roll back to older versions of your files.
The most important though is to never, ever open a file or link in an email or on a social website unless you’re sure it was deliberately sent by the person themselves. It may seem interesting at the time, but the results could be utterly catastrophic.
Aiming to strengthen Japan’s global influence and soft power through the internationalisation of higher education, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government is turning the spotlight on research collaboration – in particular strengthening joint research with developing countries in Africa and Asia.
Can university leaders ensure that their institutions keep up with rapid changes in technology and shifts in local and global economies? The International Association of University Presidents session at the WISE conference in Doha last week sparked considerable debate on whether universities can survive to serve ‘emerging generations’.
Thousands of students at Al-Azhar University, Egypt’s huge Islamic seminary, have held rallies in support of ousted Islamist president Mohamed Morsi for the second consecutive week amid accusations from the institution’s administrators that the students have been engaged in acts of violence and vandalism. Dozens of students have been arrested.
The Bangkok Criminal Court last Wednesday upheld the verdict of a lower court that had acquitted the president of Chulalongkorn University in Thailand of conducting an unfair investigation in the first ever case of the university revoking a PhD.
Free, credit-bearing online learning has become accessible for students worldwide. The Open Educational Resource university – a project of the UNESCO-Commonwealth of Learning OER Chair network – was unveiled on 1 November, promising to “revolutionise tertiary learning”.
Open Universities Australia reached a remarkable milestone last Monday when it announced that its free online learning platform Open2Study had lured 100,000 enrolments, with 53,000 students from more than 180 countries undertaking one or more of its massive open online courses, or MOOCs.
The Chinese government has responded positively to the arrival of massive open online courses – MOOCs – and is speeding up the development of its own online offerings. More on China and MOOCs in the Features section
Phase one of the Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence initiative, being sponsored by the World Bank to the tune of US$158 million, is expected to kick off in the third week of November when the identities of universities that have been selected to host the centres will be made public.
The United States and Libya have agreed to set up a higher education task force that will work to strengthen Libya’s educational capacity, provide information about study abroad to Libyan students, and expand scholarships and exchange opportunities.
Public universities in Nigeria have been shut since 2 July by crippling industrial action by members of the Academic Staff Union of Universities. The main grouse of academics is the government’s failure to fund various formal agreements aimed at revitalising the public university system.
Kenya has formally allowed universities to take over tertiary colleges in a new policy framework. But the upgraded institutions must retain their original courses, programmes and mandates, says the policy announced last Thursday by cabinet.
Ghana’s public universities are facing a boom in applications, but do not have sufficient facilities to meet growing demand that has been exacerbated by an influx of students from neighbouring countries and a double cohort leaving school this year.
A higher education grant competition has been launched as a major collaboration between the United States and United Kingdom. The Global Innovation Initiative plans to strengthen higher education research partnerships between the US, UK and selected countries – Brazil, China, India and Indonesia.
The paper highlights the central importance of investment in STEM as well as in social sciences and humanities research and education.
The crucial role played by innovation in lifting national productivity and the importance of improving links between public education and research and the private sector is also highlighted.
The paper proposes a strategy with “four essential, interconnected elements”:
Education: formal and informal;
Knowledge: ensuring a continuous flow of new ideas, and their dissemination;
Innovation: using knowledge to produce high value goods and services; and,
Influence: collaboration, networks and alliances, to ensure that Australia earns its place in the world.
In order to progress development of these strategic actions, Chubb proposes the establishment of a National Innovation Council, and suggests that the Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC), could be structured and referenced to
undertake the role.
The need to move is illustrated by some simple facts of life: there is no entitlement to a particular future; there will be no free ride on the back of the accomplishments of the rest of world; or on the back of our own resources.
This is Campus Review’s own summary of lead items in its online edition. As Campus Review is a subscription service, you or your organisation need to have a subscription to Campus Review to view the full article. All non subscribers to Campus Review can have access to a free online trial offer provides free online access to the website for 28 days.
The new Minister for Higher Education, Kim Carr, has not clarified whether he will reintroduce university enrolment caps, despite signalling the need to focus on quality rather than student numbers, although he has been careful to avoid talk of reintroducing admissions caps. Asked whether he will revisit the policy of caps, Carr said, “I’ve not used that language.” But he said he wants to ensure that the educational experience university students receive is a high-quality one.
Higher education’s ever-changing mood
The chair of Universities Australia Sandra Harding can detect a changing mood when it comes to the importance of education, particularly higher education. The public is engaging with the issue and there is a new sense of activism from those who have committed their lives to education and research. Universities Australia’s public awareness campaign, started in late February this year with a sharper edge since April and now in its ‘regional’ phase, has struck a chord. UA’s own polling shows that Australians are concerned about the cuts to universities and to student support. So much so that stated voter intention is being affected.
There is so much controversy surrounding VET policy that it is difficult to look with fresh eyes upon any policy initiative that previously has attracted debate in the last few years. Based on new evidence, one such initiative which deserves a second look is the National Workforce Development Fund (NWDF).
The fund distributes around $130–$150 million per annum directly to businesses, not training providers, for training programs that enable those businesses to improve their productivity.
This novel Australian government program aims to help business identify and address their current and future workforce development needs.
Robin Shreeve, CEO, Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency (AWPA), considers that the unique aspects of the fund are that it is “a co-funded scheme where the government makes a partial contribution to an enterprise for training and other workforce development activities. The enterprise picks the RTO [registered training provider]”.
For small business, the government contributes two-thirds of the cost of the training and business one-third, and when the scheme was announced in mid-2011 some commentators believed this one-third contribution was too steep and would be resisted by business.
Based on government’s quantitative measures, the program is clearly a success, according to Shreeve.
The fund is meeting its performance indicators in terms of enrolments and it’s very strongly subscribed. We’re certainly going to meet all expenditure targets in terms of getting the money out the door; in fact we’ve probably got more demand than we can cope with.
Perhaps the only remaining controversy around this fund is that some high-quality training providers are not taking advantage of the opportunities open to them.
There is no denying the gaudy statistics surrounding Coursera’s rapid ascent to be the world’s leading MOOC platform little more than a year since opening its virtual doors. Enrolments of 3.5 million, 70 of the world’s best universities on four continents as partners, 374 courses ranging from archaeology to finance to medicine, not to mention more than $20 million dollars in venture capital.
Coursera was born at Stanford University in the heart of Silicon Valley. But its biggest convert may well be the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
Penn has been awarding degrees since 1757 and is a founding member of the Ivy League. It prides itself on providing high quality and highly selective undergraduate education as well as being a world leader in research. Last year, only 12 per cent of the 35,000 students who applied for undergraduate admission were offered places to study. The Penn brand, along with other icons like its Wharton School of business, are the touchstone of the university’s reputation as well as its business model.
But this month Penn announced with great fanfare the virtual arrival of its one millionth Coursera student, more than a quarter of Coursera’s total enrolment.
So why would Penn jump so fully onto the Coursera bandwagon? Senior administrators hope MOOCs will “jump start a conversation about technology in the classroom”.
But this is likely to be a lengthy process, requiring a transformation in the way academics think about teaching, the decommissioning of lecture theatres, the reconfiguring of formal and informal learning spaces, not to mention a substantial reworking of the financial model.
In the short term, Penn is MOOCing itself to enhance its reputation and to project its brand globally. Penn may be a household name among the east coast establishment, but it doesn’t have the sports star power of UCLA nor the global veneration of Harvard.
It is hard to quantify the real branding benefit for Penn but the right marketing question to ask might be: how much would a university of 24,000 students be willing to pay to guarantee 1 million prospective customers try its products? How much would Penn have to pay to search for and find the very top sliver of those customers worldwide, students of such potential that they could well thrive on its campus?
The answer in Penn’s case is “quite a bit”. Penn made a joint investment with Caltech of $3.7m in Coursera. And the fixed start-up cost to make a high production value MOOC is significant, more than $100,000 on most estimates, not to mention the hundreds of hours of academics’ time in development, production and delivery.
This is much more investment than Korean rapper PSY made in his global hit Gangnam Style. His self-made YouTube video was watched by hundreds of millions of teenagers, all of whom will come of university age this decade.
In the same way the Khan Academy’s multitude of free short videos of simple lessons have been a huge success because they have made online education accessible, fun and popular, with more than 230 million videos viewed.
Unlike PSY and Khan, Penn’s MOOCs are not its primary product, on-campus teaching and research are. But MOOC celebrity will only attract more attention, more students, and more donors to Penn, allowing the university to reinvest in its core enterprise.
With lots of universities trying to play Penn’s game and infinitely more students wanting to know who they are and who is the best, global MOOC rankings can not be far away. For obvious commercial reasons, Coursera doesn’t want to tell the world which of its partners are proving most and least popular. But there is already a website “MOOCs: Top 10 Sites for Free Education With Elite Universities”. And mooc-list.com has the complete list of “MOOCs offered by the best universities and entities”.
A global MOOC league table would be the ultimate in crowd sourced intelligence on teaching in higher education. Prospective university students – especially those in Asia – have been using the Shanghai Jiao Tong and other global research rankings for years to help determine their preferred university. But students care much more about what is interesting in the (virtual) classroom than who is pushing back the frontiers of knowledge in the lab.
In only a decade, the Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities has become a must view list for prospective students in Asia and globally. It is unlikely to take as long for a MOOC ranking to emerge, and its impact on student behavior could be even more profound.
In Australia, universities are already highly dependent on rankings-obsessed international students choosing their institution. Those universities that choose to stay out of the MOOC game, often because of the high up-front costs with little direct return on investment, could thus find themselves at two disadvantages in the ever more competitive global market.
They would not be playing the Penn cum PSY strategy for turbocharging their brands. And they might not be able to participate in global MOOC rankings. All Australian universities spend big money on marketing and student recruitment. They all hold their breath when the latest world university ranking comes out.
When thinking whether to MOOC or not to MOOC, it might be time for Australian universities to consider going Gangman Style.
Sean Gallagher is chief operating officer at the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and Geoffrey Garrett is Dean of the Australian School of Business at UNSW.
Chief Scientist Ian Chubb has called for a national strategy to support Australian science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and research. He says that, while our science system in general may be pretty good, serious shortcomings remain for Australia to be above average across all fields of science on the world stage, like the US, Canada and some European countries.
Almost two years in the job, he has released a report on the health of Australian science, followed by a more recent paper, in which Australia’s science performance was benchmarked.
Our best scientists are up there with the best, but we drop away and have a long tail. This tail has implications for the weight and balance of our research efforts.
He concludes that Australia punches above its weight in research but that “we have to go beyond accepting our own rhetoric about our excellence”.
One problem is the persistent decline in university enrolments in the STEM-disciplines over the last decade.
A shortfall in undergraduates has influenced funding in STEM areas leading to fewer staff, less research and a deficiency in innovation, which Australia needs to have an impact internationally.
Most nations that outperform us have a National Science & Technology Strategy— a whole of government coherent vision with concrete directions to support research within STEM disciplines, argues Chubb. “
We don’t, but we should. We need to prepare ourselves so that we can face up to whatever happens in the future, solve it, manage it, mitigate it and adapt to it, whatever it may be.
Chubb is developing a proposal for Australia’s National Science & Technology Strategy, which meets the need for basic science to generate new ideas, innovation to harness technology and to be globally competitive, and science to be embedded in our society to remain a nation of influence.
Without an overarching plan, Chubb wonders whether Australia can sustain a productive and effective setting for STEM-training, and ensure research and innovation continues contributing to global solutions for the future of our climate, environment and economy.
The nation needs a coherent national strategy to ensure the enormous benefits of cutting edge science and technology underpin efforts to produce a more diverse, productive and innovative economy and improve the lives of all Australians.
1 May 2013 | On 30 April, 1993, CERN made the World Wide Web technology available on a royalty-free basis. To celebrate the 20th anniversary of this Internet milestone, the organization has restored that very first website.
The move will “preserve the digital assets that are associated with the birth of the Web,” CERN said on its website. Ultimately, the organization wants that Web address – info.cern.ch – to be “a destination that reflects the story of the beginnings of the web for the benefit of future generations.”
CERN, or the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is an international organization that operates the world’s largest particle physics laboratory.
The first URL was “http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html.” For years, however, it has redirected to the CERN website’s Web host root. But using the archive hosted on the W3C site, CERN put the files back online and recreated a 1992 version of the very first website.
“This may be the earliest copy that we can find, but we’re going to keep looking for earlier ones,” CERN said.
The World Wide Web itself dates back to 1989, thanks to the work of Tim Berners-Lee (pictured), who created the first website at info.cern.ch. At the time, “the Internet was already a mature set of protocols,” CERN said. But the World Wide Web created “a networked hypertext system that allowed CERN physicists to read and publish documents, and to create links between and within them.”
By 1993, CERN made the World Wide Web’s source code available on a royalty-free basis, leading to the growth of the Internet as we know it. As CERN pointed out, the WWW was easier to use than other systems that were available at the time, like WAIS and Gopher. At the end of 1993, there were 500 Web servers and the WWW made up 1 percent of Web traffic; today there are approximately 630 million websites.
In addition to restoring the first URL, CERN wants to comb through the CERN Web servers to “see what assets from them we can preserve and share.”
CERN also posted Berners-Lee’s original proposal for the WWW, which he wrote in March 1989 and first distributed in May 1990. It was intended to persuade CERN that the development of the WWW was a worthwhile endeavour.
It’s almost 60 years since a ‘teaching machine’ to overcome the educational limitations of the one-size-fits classroom and lecture hall was first conceptualised. In his classic essay, The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching, B. F. Skinner envisaged a machine to be used by individual students that would present information, reinforce it appropriately and then move onto a new level, the difficulty of which the machine would select based on the performance of each unique user.
Technology has now caught up with educational theory, ‘teaching machines’ have well and truly arrived, and much debate and hand-wringing has followed.
Most recently, discussion has been dominated by the rise of massive open online courses (MOOCs) – badged by some of the world’s most prestigious universities and often equally renown lecturers – delivering pre-packaged university courses to the computers and digital devices of anyone who wants them, anywhere in the world, mostly for free.
The risk with the current MOOCs debate is that it too narrowly defines the challenge universities are facing simply as the impact of mass delivery of cheap content.
Discussions about the costs of higher education, widening access to university, the globalisation of higher education and differentiation of the university mission were taking place well before MOOCs became the educational acronym of the year. Nor is the debate regarding open and online education new – MOOCs are simply highlighting issues that were already rising to the surface.
For bricks and mortar universities, technology-led changes over the past two decades mean the online and digital delivery of courses and reference materials has become the norm. Outside a few specific areas, academic staff rarely visit libraries to access resources these days. Today, few, if any, students would not be using an online Learning Management System to aid their studies.
Our physical libraries have been transformed beyond recognition into study and collaboration spaces that also happen to hold books. At UNSW, our book loans are declining by more than 20% per annum but foot traffic by students into the library rose 25% last year, as students turned to the library to study, to work in groups and to source help in navigating the rapidly increasing volumes of data available online. Students, too, are changing – many more have part-time jobs, they come and go from campus frequently and are far more likely to engage in group or shared study than ever before, both in person and online.
The same technologies that facilitate MOOCs are allowing us to improve the learning experience for all students in face-to-face and online formats and to explore optimum ‘blends’ of both – the flipped classroom writ large. Face-to-face time on campus can be used to its best advantage, for talking and doing, not passively listening. Peer education and group work will become more prevalent in the future — a trend we are already seeing. Core content can, in many cases, be effectively delivered online.
Yet, while digital technology has sharpened the focus and accelerated the time lines of change, it is only a conduit and a tool. As Skinner so eloquently argued in 1954 the key to the effective use of his ‘teaching machine’ was the quality of the teacher designing and presenting the material it delivered. In the internet age of information oversupply that truth is only reinforced; wherever technology takes us the critical role for great educator will remain. Indeed, given the ever expanding volumes of data and information to sift through the need for educators to act as navigators, interpreters and guides will, perhaps, increase.
And, as Bertrand Russell states in his Unpopular Essays of 1950: “Change is one thing, progress is another. ‘Change’ is scientific, ‘progress’ is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy”.
Technological advances in themselves have very rarely created true progress without consequent sociological adaptation. We are quick to talk about the power of a new technology, far less quick to unpick what it will mean to the societal constructs around education and learners. However, if we are to harness the potential of new technology we need to understand how student interaction with teachers and fellow students is changing, and the pace at which this change is occurring.
For leading research-intensive institutions like UNSW, with a mission far broader than undergraduate education alone, the open and online world offers us the opportunity to expose a far larger audience to the richness of research-led education, but at the same time puts at risk the funding model that supports much of our research capacity.
The future is one of balancing such considerable tensions. Universities will need a very clear sense of their own mission and purpose, a focus on their unique aspects and a relentless effort to ensure that the technology underpinning their educational mission is of a quality and capacity to meet the expectations of an increasingly demanding student audience.
A starker future could see university sector go the way of the automobile industry over the past century. Thousands of small boutique car manufacturers either amalgamated or withered and died to create a globalised market dominated by a very limited number of truly global brands; albeit with local showrooms and service centres and some minor local variations of global models.
Whilst such a scenario for universities is currently a long way off, is it beyond the realm of possibility that a ‘Ford’ or ‘VW’ higher education model may emerge in undergraduate education? I think not. As a sector we need to consider what such a possibility might mean.
I am not foolish enough to suggest with any certainty what the future might hold. However, is there a lesson to be learned from those car makers that did survive, and in some cases flourish, in the face of profound change? They did so by maintaining a distinct place in the market; that is, one predominantly defined by a global reputation, a high quality product and a specific market niche — and not by primarily focusing on competing on cost.
Professor Iain Martin is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) at the University of New South Wales.
With the rapid rise of MOOCs – massive open online courses – some commentators predict that the internet will replace the classroom.
But Grattan Institute Higher Education Program Director Andrew Norton says online education is more likely to enrich than supplant traditional teaching.
“Despite the hype around purely online education, the big question is not whether online courses will replace classrooms, but whether technology will drive the re- design of teaching and learning,” he says.
“In future we might watch a lecture on our tablet, PC or phone before we go to class to discuss specific problems. We might test ourselves regularly online, exposing what we do and don’t know. Use of personal data could lead to courses that adapt to individual student’s abilities. The possibilities are vast.”
The report also considers what government should do to ensure that Australian students benefit from new information technology.
Mr Norton says the advance of online learning provides opportunities for new, low- cost entrants into the relatively closed higher education field. The government should reduce expensive requirements for student admission and welfare services that are less relevant for online students.
The government should seek agreements with other countries for mutual recognition of higher education providers. This would give Australian universities more opportunities overseas, and provide Australian students with increased access to innovative higher education providers from other countries.
“Whether they come from Australia or overseas, if their standards are high, government should help new education providers get in the door,” Mr Norton says.
Universities have been shaken to their foundations by the sudden availability – universally – of high quality tertiary subjects online and free.
MOOCs so far have been heralded as a way to educate marginalised people in advanced economies, and the billions of people in the developing world who have little or no access to higher education.
But it did not take Vice-Chancellors long to realise that if free online higher education courses were available from the top global universities, this might quickly erode the numbers of students in their own institutions. After all, MOOCs appear well-equipped to engage with the digital generation.
Warnings about the long term viability of university business models followed.
But before we give up on the integrity and achievements of a thousand year old university system, perhaps we should ask some serious questions about MOOCs. After all, just how massive are they? And what are they here for?
Global tsunami or just hype?
The main MOOCs are anticipating student numbers reaching into the millions world-wide. edX, the Harvard/MIT MOOC pioneers, are aiming to reach one billion students.
But already, they claim to be reaching hundreds of thousands of students (see table below). Yet the figures of student numbers claimed by the MOOCs are highly speculative, and include students who do not complete their subjects. An important consideration when the reported drop out rate can be up to 90%.
The total student numbers claimed by the largest MOOCs. Author
In fact, though the MOOCs clearly have a potential to grow immensely, these figures are strikingly similar to what was achieved during the last wave of e-learning euphoria in the early 2000s.
Been here before
During this earlier wave, all of the US investment banks in the late 1990s and early 2000s extended the hype cycle from the adventures of dot.com companies directly into e-learning start-ups.
Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Securities, Hambrecht and Co, Sun Trust, and many others relentlessly spruiked the e-learning industry as destined for fabulous growth trajectories and mouth-watering revenue streams.
Identifying the US education and training industry as worth $772 billion in 2000, the second largest sector of the US economy, investment banks could not wait to secure a piece of this action. Merrill Lynch salivated:
“By our estimates, the e-knowledge market will reach $53.3 billion by 2003… Web-based corporate learning should enjoy explosive growth, measuring $11.4 billion by 2003, up from $550 million in 1998.”
The market opportunity for e-Learning is vast. A broad measure of e-Learning’s potential is the approximately $646 billion spent on corporate training, higher education, and K-12 schooling in the United States in 1999. While e-Learning will never capture 100% of this market, we believe that it can generate billions in new wealth for investors off relatively small market shares.
In a thorough review of the e-learning sector at the time Hambrecht & Co claimed:
We expect the online training market to nearly double in size every year through 2003, reaching approximately $11.5 billion by that time. Investment opportunities in online pure plays will emerge, as numerous e-learning companies are now preparing to tap the public markets.
Yet of the 46 most promising e-learning companies identified in the comprehensive Hambricht & Co survey in 2000, but in a recent analysis only six were still in existence in 2010, and most of these had morphed from being learning technology companies into social network companies.
A viable business?
Will the MOOCs experience the same fate as these earlier entrepreneurial efforts?
Hopefully the MOOCs are built on more solid educational foundations and ideals. The MOOCs are offering at this stage provision of a valuable educational service for free, they have a vital connection to distinguished universities, and they have a global vision of educating the masses which fits well with the transformation towards a knowledge economy.
Most importantly much of the broadband technology that was in its infancy a decade ago is now more extensively available, with an unimaginable array of software tools and rich content to fuel the educational aspirations of the new digital generation. If well conceived and delivered, the MOOCs could be at the forefront of the globalisation of higher education.
But they have many issues to negotiate first, and could lose their way as the early pioneers of e-learning largely did.
Free goods and winner-takes-all
At the heart of the marvellous MOOC educational mission is a profound and probably unresolvable tension between the goal to educate and to monetise.
Are they committed to providing mass education as a public good or are they aiming at winner-take-all global domination of education markets?
As Simon Marginson persuasively argued, the MOOCs are deeply embroiled in both the idealism of providing free universal access to higher education courses, and the logic of winner-take-all markets.
This is Harvard and Google. Stanford and Hollywood. MIT and Apple.
The eminent universities involved, of course, have educational ideals at the forefront of their strategy (and enhancing their global brands as traditional universities). But the venture capitalists investing the seed funding for the early MOOCs have more commercial instincts, and it is likely that all of the MOOCs will become increasingly dependent on venture capital funding as they seek to expand their activities.
As the search to monetise the MOOCs continues, the worry is they will become a platform for advertising, increasingly add on additional services for fees that will leave many excluded, and erect increasing pay-walls over time. First secure the market, then milk it.
Whatever the original ideals, the MOOCs legacy, if developed irresponsibly, could prove the unintended consequence of a commercialisation and homogenisation of higher education on an global scale.
The MOOC impact
In the context of the previous experience of investments in e-learning, and the issues still be resolved by the new exuberant generation of MOOCs, it will be advisable for universities to adopt a measured approach to developing their responses.
What is clear is that for many years to come universities will be developing and applying different approaches to blending technology with face to face learning.
The proliferation of technology and software tools provides a powerful platform which universities can use just as well as the most advanced MOOCs to enrich the learning experience.
Essentially universities are gradually morphing into mass online campuses in their own right, though maintaining the wonder of face to face encounters, and retaining a role for the most flexible, interactive, intelligent and responsive pedagogic technology of all – the teacher in the classroom.
This article by Thomas Clarke, University of Technology, Sydney, was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.