Definitely agree James, but likewise we must include in the discussion the bias by existing institutions to maintain the status quo while regulators usually reinforce the institutional view of the world.
Universities have been too slow in my view to embrace these opportunities and, as you correctly point out the cost cutting angle, that seems to be the main driver at the moment. Chicken and the egg problem again - Did the MOOCs force the cost cuts or did the cost cuts make the MOOCs attractive? Where is the real talk and action around the quality of education?

Of course it will be face to face for some aspects. Its just that it will be face to face on computer and no doubt it will make it easier to discuss things face to face with lecturers when you need to (hen they are available of course). But it also gives you far greater opportunity to discuss things face to face with other students and in the comfort of your home over a cup of coffee.

Spot on "only when an institution adopts networked learning and working for its staff, that it will be successful in adopting networked learning for its students fully".

And given the quite divisive, political and self-interested cultures in many academic institutions that is going to be a major problem for many - for the majority? There was an article not so long ago in The Age or the AFR where a senior bureaucrat recounted his experiences after retiring and deciding that he would love to share his knowledge and took up quite a good academic post. His point was that it was the all-round worst workplace environment that he had ever encountered in his entire career.

There are most likely some great exceptions. But this point is a very good insight and universities should take heed of this is assessing their readiness for online interaction, for sure.

Hi Frank,

I like the two paradigms you describe, production v client-based and we are definitely stuck in the first.

You mention a "disconnected feeling when online forms too great a component" and preferring to "look them in the eye". I hear those types of comments a lot and they form the basis for my argument, that people have a lingering discomfort with online interactions, that is hard to overcome.

And I think to a large part, for students and staff, this is because our current offerings fall far short of a rich, online but most of all, human, learning experience. Here are some observations of possible contributing factors, just from my own experience working with faculty staff in design, development and facilitation of units:
- Our LMSs are too linear and definitely teacher-centric,
- Our LMSs are often siloed web-based environments, requiring a log in and not connected to our regular life streams (Facebook, Twitter, other...),
- Discussion forums have poor usability (eg inability to vote comments up or down, flag messages, view in streamed format...),
- The learning design is insular, not incorporating personal learning networks that students already have, divorcing the learning from their regular activities
- The learning design is not based (enough) on a learning community paradigm, leaving the academic staff with the responsibility of all the talking and responding, and the students with a passive role,
- Our semester/trimester rhythms work against the building of lasting learning communities and relationships. After all what is the point in investing in learning relationships and contributing to learning artefacts/information streams in a unit, when after 6 months the whole thing gets pulled down and you are asked to start all over again? This was an observation astutely made by Jon Mott back in 2008 when he was examining the Loosely Couple Gradebook. "Access to content and relationships with other learners would persist over time. Access would not be tied to artificial institutional teaching calendars." http://www.jonmott.com/blog/2008/08/learning-technology-customers/ . That was in 2008 when online communities were still not prevalent. But think of the rise we've seen of social interactions since then: the Arab spring, the Occupy movement, Facebook's growth and the rise of social tv as people engage with Eurovision, the Olympics and #qanda. Crowd-generated interactions on multiple platforms around many events. And yet, in higher ed, we still aim to control the learning interactions and keep them confined to our platforms and our rhythms.

It's possible to be more "human" in online learning, as you saw in your grad cert experience, but it's still rare that this is a component of the learning design. My second best learning experience as a student, was during my Master in Education Technology at USQ (2005-2008). All of the units were designed to facilitate community-based experiential learning and so, as you called it, entirely client-based. I began the course while living in the Netherlands, finished it in NZ and never even set foot on Australian soil until after my last assessment. And yet many relationships I formed during that study were real indeed and and with people I continue to work and learn with. Thanks to the learning design, my student peers became colleagues, some who were instrumental in my move across the world, some who are now Deakin colleagues, and others who are advisors/peers at a distance via LinkedIn, Facebook, Skype and Twitter...

And that brings me to my best learning experience as a student. On Twitter. Since 2007 I've been on this social networking site, and its capacity for open, rich, human, serendipitous and just-in-time learning experiences never ceases to amaze me. Working rurally as the only eLearning specialist for miles in NZ, Twitter taught me everything I needed to do my job. And to play the ukulele. And to become a better writer. And...and... (you get the point). It is entirely client-based. Through Twitter I connected with many people in my field and our connections were not based on the face-to-face component being a prerequisite for our relationship, but a value-add. And whenever we have been lucky enough to meet up in the flesh, the conversations we can have are so much richer, because we've gotten all the pre-amble out of the way. As you probably find with your colleagues. Flipping the relationship?

In my current role in the university, I strive to deliver professional development, resources and advice in education technology, in such a way that colleagues get that rich networked learning experience with the occasional f2f value-add. The only way that people will be able to design and facilitate a networked experience, is once they have had one. I'm just a small cog, but I'm a very networked node...

Thanks for the conversation :-)

Yes, I read a report of those comments. But all the objections I read were speculative.

For example, Teqsa's risk framework provides that risk may be increased by 'Significant reliance on third parties to deliver courses domestically'. First, 'deliver' in this context means 'teach', and I think it appropriate that Teqsa would increase the risk rating of institutions which deliver thru a third party which is not primarily educational. But this risk can be displaced by evidence and argument.

It is appropriate for Teqsa to consider low or declining revenue per student a risk, particularly for institutions with marginal financial viability. But this concern can readily be met by showing lower costs per student.

Likewise, an excessive reliance on casual staff increases the risk of failures of quality and standards, but an institution could readily demonstrate that it had induction, protocols and monitoring that reduced this risk.