Abstract
A call to the scholarly practitioner or “alt-ac” (alternative academic) as Kim and Maloney reference, Learning Innovation and the Future of Higher Education is an exploration into the science and scholarship of learning today. Unsurprisingly, the authors assert that we now live in a world where the expectation to innovate, create, and do more with less is the norm in education. However, with irrevocable changes (many for the better) to the higher education landscape made by technology, the authors set out to explore how institutions, learning organizations, and academics might evolve to “better align teaching practices with the emerging science of learning” (p. ix).
The year 2012 marked an inflection point in higher education, and MOOCs were the catalyst that made it happen. The promises and threats of MOOCs forced many institutions and educators to question well-established approaches and practices to teaching and learning. The anxiety of 2012 has passed, but the questions and challenges raised in the years since reveal a major shift in what Kim and Maloney call a “turn to learning” (p. 4). With a well-placed reference to Paulo Freire’s traditional banking model of education and a prevailing notion for “disruptive innovation” in higher education, the authors argue that new student-centered models and digital technologies highlight a more active, engaged style of learning. With diminishing enrollments and closures of institutions and academic programs (intensified in the time of COVID-19), this is not a difficult narrative to believe. Their intent is to open up a discussion about how the way we teach and learn are changing and the authors assert that both need to change.
As an overarching premise, Kim and Maloney argue that “learning innovation” is as much about “leading organizational change as it is about pedagogy and technology,” thus outlining their ideas for a new type of learning organization and career (p. 10). The authors provide multiple ideas for institutional change using specific examples and case studies to include their own programs at Georgetown and Dartmouth. For example, the authors highlight the need for the creation of shared intellectual spaces where learning innovations can be critically examined, debated, and fostered. Many Centers for Teaching and Learning are renewing their missions in this direction, and specific examples in the book include a growing number organizations and newly created offices that offer a combination of educational developers, instructional designers, e-media specialists, web designers, librarians (or information specialists), alongside adult educators and faculty training support. The common thread is an institutional commitment to invest in learning research and development for student-centered approaches and in particular for the growing number of learning professionals or “alt-acs” that occupy roles somewhere between faculty and administrators. As an “alt-ac” myself, this concept highlighted a different job trajectory and experience that many adult educators have carved out for themselves.
Among discussion of institutional changes and changing academic roles, the authors provide an overall argument that a single interdisciplinary field of learning innovation needs to be established. One of the more salient arguments highlights how a significant portion of discourse among learning innovation professionals is embedded in social media. Without a structured community of practice or academic department per se, academic conferences, consortiums, and professional associations play a major role in the networking and distribution of scholarly ideas and discourse. However, the authors note an ever growing and alarming back channel (Twitter for example) of quick dialogue and ideas that circulate at such events. While social media has great utility and can reach a larger population of readers much faster than a book or article, the concern is that these posts are not peer-reviewed and often lack academic scholarship. Thus, the quick dissemination of ideas (especially poorly thought out or misleading) can grow like wildfire, causing a path of scholarly destruction.
While the authors lay out multiple reasons surrounding technology, collaboration, and scholarship for a new field of study in learning innovation as precedence in this book, one only needs to review other academic fields of study (including adult education) to see the challenges they have in the future. For example, Merriam and Brockett (2007) lay out a similar historical review of the field of adult education; the need and interest that was first identified in the early 1900s; the struggle for full recognition until 1915 with the establishment of the National University of Continuing Education Association (NUCEA); and the start of the very first graduate course in adult education in 1922. Although ambitious, there are major concerns raised questioning if a new field of study in learning innovation is even necessary, given the fact that so many others (adult education) are increasingly interdisciplinary in nature and could easily fill the void.
Overall, authors Kim and Maloney propose that despite the current crisis in higher education, we are in the midst of a renaissance regarding learning and teaching. As a fellow “alt-ac,” I recommend this book for all learning professionals to have in their personal library of professional development. Adult educators are a diverse group, and whether your primary role is that of a faculty member, researcher, administrator, or a combination thereof, understanding the interdisciplinary options of expanding our field is essential for the future of our academic field of study.