When a “ Yes, Prime Minister” moment (or two) occurs, which, may I add, seem not to be isolated events but seemingly endemic to the wider system, I just can’t resist leaving it to the book.
I had several of those moments recently. The first was at a meeting where we were required to cast a vote by “secret” ballot for the promotion of another faculty member. After listening to the brilliance and achievements made by this junior member – and seriously, as I have never heard such lengthy accolades for a single individual before I assumed s/he must have won the Nobel Prize! Sadly, I was mistaken – the administrative staff diligently and with solemn application – even resisting a smile from an offhanded comical quip – distributed the pre-prepared ballot slips. Our duty as senior academic members was to decide whether the learned persons (yes, there were two candidates) we had just been informed about were eligible for promotion to the next level. On the ballot paper we were to either mark “O” or a “X” (yes or no) annotation in the box on the ballot paper. Not too taxing – at least not yet! At the bottom of the ballot paper we were given a space to write our own names – no, I was not mistaken, nor am I misleading you. And, I am not describing Mr Bean’s adventures. Remember, this is supposed to be a secret vote and why I (incorrectly) assumed there would not simply be a show of hands for either displeasure or agreement. Of course, I refused to write my name on this secret ballot. (I doubt it would have required Sherlock Holmes to determine whose the “unnamed” ballot paper might be from as I was likely the only person rebel enough not to do it.) What followed next was “ the straw that broke the camel’s back”: the administrative staff proceeded to walk around with a ballot box into which we were to place our “secret” – anonymous – votes so they could then be tallied. I wondered whether the good and well-intentioned people leading this whole process thought that someone might double vote. An interesting possibility if it weren’t for each professor being given one ballot paper with the candidate’s name clearly marked. Maybe I had a portable photocopier and could replicate the ballots? Good grief! Am I to believe this was merely ceremonial rather than a true evaluation based on due academic achievement via an acceptable democratic process? It would have been just comical – if it wasn’t so seriously flawed. And they think I am negative! “Yes, PM!” “Yes, Mr Bean.” Take your pick of the two. You won’t be wrong.
The second unbelievable moment was when, at another meeting, on the same (unfortunate) day, the long awaited release of the JMOOC was announced. One poor sod (for reasons that will become evident soon) was asked to give a short presentation to explain (minus the costs and a few other key details) and demonstrate some (I hope it was only some) aspects of this MOOC. Oh, if you have not ascertained, the J in JMOOC creatively and patriotically represents ‘Japan’. For those who are not aware what a MOOC actually might be: it is a Massive Open Online Course that started as a research project in the USA, but has since grown to be more common place. I have taken a few MOOC courses from EDx, with mixed results (passing some and incomplete in others, as I was too busy to keep up with the imbalanced course work, amongst another reasons I won’t comment on here). Opinions about MOOC are mixed; the data not being overly kind presently. Personally, I hope they facilitate change in the current commodification trends happening in higher education. I like the idea of university courses being available for free (or very minimum cost) to the wider public, simply because I encourage the philosophy of life-long learning, believe we must improve educational standards, and also because it is simply beneficial for the health and well-being of the brain and mind. Notwithstanding, I am aware that MOOC have many shortfalls, including evidence that learners are actually engaging with the learning potentials (though that same claim could be made of many face-to-face courses I have witnessed here in Japan), feedback issues due to the large number of enrolled students (one of the courses I successfully passed had more than 20,000 enrolled), and questions about whether the people who are taking a MOOC are the the target group who should be enrolling (that is, people like me or the people who have never been to college or high school), amongst others.
I’m not going to go into any history of the MOOC at this particular academic organization other than to say a few years ago I proposed a MOOC-like idea, developed in English, as an option that could be “piggybacked” on top of a collaborative program between the Japanese organization and another SE Asian country’s organization that were having discussions with at the time. My suggestion was to NOT create a MOOC – although I could see wider benefits if it were in English – but create an Open U-like course linked to a web page that could be accessed by interested members of the public, and one which could be used for any collaborative program that may eventuate. Do note: the Open U-like course would be multilingual – not monolingual for a predominantly Japanese-speaking audience only! Put simply, I am particularly sensitive of the Galapagos Mentality that runs rife and handicaps the citizens from becoming anything more than diligent citizens blown one way or the other at the beckon call of the media and government that feeds them. Japan MUST get its information out to the international community so it can stand on its own as an adult and not cower behind the book of one thousand excuses – and the United States. (That may sound harsh, but Japan has so much to offer. It is being held back by some very antiquated, and self-seeking powerful interest groups). Japan’s future potential is to extend its “clever power” reach and reputation, not via a domestic focus, such as a JMOOC that will have minimal hits (unless the culture of on-line learning changes suddenly and a lot less people start to matriculate from high school or higher education), but by showing the international community that it is an equal player in more than engineering, genetics, medicine, robotics and mathematics. (Many countries would be proud to be leaders in such fields, but bridges and railways do not share their observations; genes talk to each other and way react according to our mindset but they don’t share with others unless we copulate; medicine can cure diseases and help us live longer, but they don’t enable individual economic gain to capitalize on the extra life; robots do not have empathy; and mathematical equations are amazing but the language does not translate to most of the population.)
OK, no dirty laundry, but the template I presented to both the SE Asian organization (which prompted that organization to agree immediately to a test collaborative course – a complete 180° turnaround from the stance they had adopted at the beginning of the meeting), was interactive, learner-focused, and was immediately applicable to the learner’s world, with potentials for making paper-based material available (over and above pdfs and ppt files on the course) to those who might require them. Politics aside, which is what “ killed” the goose, another person managed to acquire about $10,000 from Japan’s MOOC association, which no doubt has links to Todai. Think what you could really create with this money! One could make a fantastic interactive course. The result, as presented? About 10 x 10 minute videos of several learned members talking in front on a blue/green screen on to which a photo of the organization’s campus and a powerpoint slide presentations were superimposed. $10,000 spent! For a YouTube channel. Simply, that is all it is: a YouTube channel; a one directional, one-in-ten-million other channels all hopefully waiting to be digested. (Not to boast, but a YouTube channel created for my students’ work some years back had 200,000¹ plus hits! Why? Applicability and suitability to the target audience). What was the interactivity of the MOOC presented? I didn’t see any. Opportunity for student feedback? Didn’t see any. Peer to peer discussion? Didn’t see any. Assessment information? Didn’t see any. 10 week course? Saw that with 10 videos! (Post-Covid comment: I wonder how many of the videos were utilized during the online delivery period? I wonder whether the protagonists delivering the lectures in the video were able to transfer any multimedia knowledge to their own online delivery? Were they able to utilize another $10,000 per course to create multimedia content for online courses that were mandatory during Covid restrictions?)
The really sad part for me was when the other members clapped and cheered as if the “MOOC” was some kind of brilliance – toward beliefs that some YouTube channel represents a MOOC. Was this an example of Groupthink? Ignorance? or just a case of Japanese politeness?
So much for the opportunities to get Japan out to a global audience. So much for showing that Japan is capable of effective educational theory and pedagogy. So much for… The implicit bias. What do I know with a PhD from the University of Cambridge in education, technology and learning? It means squat when you’re not “in” or when people’s worlds are locked inside cardboard boxes and small bubbles. I really do feel sorry for the youth…
Please do buy the upcoming book about many of the “adventures in advanced Japan: you really won’t believe it” – or if you do, you will struggle to reconcile the advanced nation to the reality within.
¹ In January 2025 hits had risen to over 530,000 – more than many universities in Japan attract.
Merry Christmas
Malcolm's Home 