About Debbie Morrison

I'm an Instructional Designer and Educator with over ten years experience in creating meaningful, rich learning outcomes in higher education, K-12 and business. Committed to improving education quality and access with online learning. Worked as the Lead Curriculum Developer, Online Programs at a four-year university, currently consulting with organizations to create effective online programs.

Need-to-Know News: #MassiveTeaching Mess, University of Texas Online Courses, Pearson’s SOOCs

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.  This post was updated on July 22, 2014 to reflect clarification on the type of online courses offered by The University of Texas at Austin.

1) Massive Teaching Mess
Much has already been written about the most bizarre MOOC on Coursera to date, “Teaching Goes Massive: New Skills Required” (#massiveTeaching) developed by University of Zurich’s professor Paul-Oliver Dehaye. The MOOC has been labeled as a pedagogical experiment (though some say also a psychological), and the professor called  a “lunatic”, “brilliant” and/or “stupid” (via student comments within the course forum).

Screen Shot 2014-07-18 at 11.10.13 AM

“Teaching Goes Massive” (screen shot) on Cousera. Course content is no longer accessible, even to previously enrolled students  (most courses provide access to content after course is complete)

I was an enrolled student and found the course odd from day one. First, there were no course goals or focus questions provided whatsoever indicating what direction the course would take. After numerous student comments, Dehaye posted his version of course goals:

Learning Goals
- Pedagogical
- Technical
- Legal
- Business
- Societal

Brief to say the least. In fairness to Dehaye, he did state from the beginning that the entire course was an experiment, and that several experiments would be taking place within the course, “The other experiment which has been running from the start is the “Structure the Discussion Area” experiment…” and “A third experiment, which is only just starting, was initiated by courageous course participant _____ here” (excerpt from course-generated email from Dehaye on Day 2). What happened next was the catalyst for the publicity of the course, Dehaye removed all of the course content from the course site. It disappeared, no videos, announcements, no links—nothing. Then there were strange Twitter messages posted by Dehaye, and finally a of day or so later Coursera removed Dehaye from the course sending this message to enrolled students:

“We understand that the course included experimental components designed by the professor that have resulted in some course interruptions,” the statement read. “We are working with the university to make arrangements so that the course can continue to its conclusion in an appropriate manner.” Coursera

Takeaway: I agree with what appears to be the consensus, Dehaye did not do much to further constructive discussion about MOOCs, privacy or pedagogy in higher education. Though George Siemens generated quite a bit of discussion by congratulating Dehaye in his blog post. However, it was unclear what kind of statement or message Dehaye was trying to send. It had potential to be effective, but was lost.

2) University of Texas at Austin Online Courses – Correction

An earlier version of this post misrepresented the course offerings of University of Texas at Austin by suggesting the course “Topics in Globalization” would be available for credit via the edX platform.  The school is not offering college credit via its MOOC courses on edX, but is offering courses for credit on their online platform via UT Austin’s University Extension program.  Several courses are available on this platform that are for credit, that include American Government, Psychology Live and US Foreign Policy. For a full list of courses click here.

Screen Shot 2014-07-22 at 12.28.28 PM

Screen shot of University of Texas at Austin’s web page featuring information on the offerings of its online courses. Visit  online-education.la.utexas.edu

3) Pearson’s SOOCs
When reading the article on Pearson’s blog, “Will SOOCs eat MOOCs for breakfast?”, I started with a good chuckle given the cartoon featured in the opening. After reading the full post though, I wasn’t sure if the entire article was a continuation of the joke, or if it were serious. But apparently Pearson is serious. The idea of SOOCs, the article suggests, evolved during the this year’s EdTech Summit in Europe.

An evolution on the idea of MOOCs is the “selectively open online course” (or SOOC) – simply, a MOOC with an entrance requirement designed to reduce the “unwanted diversity.” This could be proven competency (e.g., pass an entrance quiz), a credential (e.g., have a degree), or membership (e.g., be in the university’s alumni network). The theory is that a more uniform student body will lead to improved peer-to-peer collaboration and higher learner outcomes.

It goes on….

Higher quality is also likely to increase learners’ willingness to pay for an online course, which in turn will increase a university’s willingness to invest in better professors, facilities, and/or pedagogy. The Harvard Business School, long a stalwart of pedagogical innovation, has taken bold steps to build its own SOOC…

Takeaway: This article (sadly) highlights the misconceptions and lack of awareness that still exists about online learning and higher education. Never mind that closed, online courses have been offered at public and private higher education institutions for well over ten years, and that the mere name SOOC, contradicts the concept of ‘open‘. Sigh.

You can keep up to date with developments in education and related sectors by following me on Twitter, @OnlineLearningI 

Three (BIG) Barriers to Student Participation in xMOOCs

This post outlines three barriers that can deter, discourage and/or intimidate students from participating in xMOOCs (MOOCs offered on platforms associated with higher education institutions, i.e. Coursera, iVersity, edX, etc).

construction_barriers

“Construction Barriers”  Photo by Lyn Topinka

The xMOOC model that emerged in 2012 has not changed much in 2014, with completion rates and participation rates just as low as they were when concrete data on completion rates appeared in 2013 (Parr, 2013). Though there are a variety of factors that contribute to low completion rates, I suggest that three barriers, 1) technology, 2) poor usability & course design, and 3) anonymity contribute significantly to low student participation levels and completion—barriers that deter, discourage and in some cases intimidate students. Also, in some instances, barriers one and two are potential barriers in closed, online classes (as those offered as for-credit courses at public and private institutions).

To illustrate points one, technology and two, poor usability and course design, below is a selection of screenshots featuring actual student comments and questions (names obscured) taken from several MOOCs offered on Coursera. Comments below are representative of typical experiences and frustrations of students participating in MOOCs. In some instances, the examples included are similar to frustrations students experience in closed online courses, which I’ve encountered when working with faculty in online course design, and as a lead curriculum developer for online programs at a private university. I close by discussing the third barrier, anonymity in online learning, specifically in MOOCs.

1) Technology 
Examples below feature student challenges with accessing course content and engaging in events due to bandwidth and internet access limitations.

Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 8.22.26 AM

File size is a common problem in MOOCs and small courses

Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 3.41.19 PM

Connectivity issues are common due to bandwidth, and even limitations of the devices used

Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 8.22.50 AM

Restricted access to certain sites in some countries

Examples below feature students’ frustrations with applications (discussion forums, etc) within the MOOC platform itself which put up barriers to student participation and engagement, for example, i) discussion forums (volume of student posts and organization), ii) synchronous events offered via Google Hangout or other platform which often fail due to technical glitches, or because of students’ lack of technical ability, etc.

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 3.54.13 PM

Discussion forums often become unwieldy; though more common in MOOCs it also happens in closed, small online courses

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 3.53.21 PM

Discussion forums in most MOOC platforms have options for ‘subscribing’, where participants receive alerts of new posts within that particular forum, though not all students are familiar with this settings and don’t know how to turn the notification emails off (or on). It’s helpful to provide participants with the instructions of how-to do so (among other features) in an orientation or introduction to the course

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 3.37.18 PM

The forums with large numbers of participants can be overwhelming to the point that there is little opportunity for reflection or deep discussions. In closed online classes it helps to have focused discussion questions per thread, and if more than 20 participants to break the class into smaller groups

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 4.20.15 PM

Google hangouts and other platforms used for synchronous events, are not immune to technological glitches. A practice run prior to the event helps (granted even still, problems occur),  and having a back-up plan is recommended

2) Poor Usability and Course Design
Usability refers to how effectively students can navigate, interact and engage with the course interface, find the content they need, determine what they need to do to engage, etc. How user-friendly the course is (or is not) is a function of how the course content and pages are organized, what is featured on the course home page for example, or where the course announcements show up, even how the course tabs appear in the navigation menu. Usability falls under the umbrella of course design; it is a component with its own principles and guidelines that impacts the students overall course experience and learning outcomes in online spaces. Usability adds another layer of complexity to designing learning experiences mostly due to the newness of online platforms as delivery mediums for education.

Course design is a broad and deep topic, which I can’t address at all adequately in this post, but below are some examples that are representative of issues that frustrate students, and can deter learning outcomes that have to do with how an assignment’s instructions are worded, presented to the student, or even designed in the first place.

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 3.56.30 PM

Instructions for student assignments or activities need to be written with exceptional clarity. This means expanding on details is necessary, including examples, and reinforcing instructions and expectations via course announcements or live sessions when the course is in session. Another issue is the use of  consistent terminology throughout the course.  In this above example ‘thread’ and ‘post’ were used interchangeably, when in fact they mean different things, thus confusing the students.

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 4.50.56 PM

Another example of student confusion when there is inconsistency or conflicting information in the course

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 6.52.58 PM

Frequently, it is student assignments that generate the most confusion among students in virtual formats, often due to unclear instructions, or those that require students to use technical applications (e.g. to create a digital artifact) that they are not familiar with

3) Anonymity
A view on participants posting anonymously within a MOOC from iVersity:

“MOOCs offer an environment that may engage introverts. Online anonymity can make students comfortable expressing themselves in forums…participating in course conversations online may give students confidence to contribute in traditional classrooms and work environments.” iVersity blog post on Anonymity

I disagree with iVersity’s position, and with Coursera and edX, which both allow anonymous posting within discussion forums. Anonymity does not contribute to effective online learning communities such as MOOCs; it’s counterintuitive to the premise of a learning within a community, where the idea is that learners actively engage, and learn with, and from each together. Several papers have identified the benefits of learning communities in distributed (online) learning environments (Dede, 2004), with some emphasizing the value of communities in MOOCs especially (Kop, Fournier & Mak, 2006). What is consistent in the research is the idea of trust and a set of common values or goals among learners.

The type of support structure that would engage learners in critical learning on an open network should be based on the creation of a place or community where people feel comfortable, trusted and valued, and where people can access and interact with resources and each other. (Kop, Fournier & Mak, 2006, p. 88)

Learning in a virtual community, where students go outside of their comfort zone, are challenged to consider alternative perspectives and build a personal learning network for example, requires a level of rapport, familiarity and trust between classmates and instructors. This sense of community can and does happen in small, closed learning environments, and in cMOOC learning communities, but experiencing a sense of community in xMOOCs is far more difficult to accomplish with many of variables making it so, anonymity is just one. With this learning approach (and others) assumed by MOOC platform providers, I see xMOOCs destined to be static resources posted on the web—open courseware such as MIT OCW.

Closing Thoughts
Learning in xMOOCs is far more complex than what the MOOC platforms seem to be able to address. Low completion rates are just one metric of how students’ views of MOOCs are at odds with what the expectations of the MOOC providers. The three barriers discussed here, technology, usability and anonymity are just one piece of a bigger problem that MOOC platform providers will need to address if they are interested in creating a communities of learning where students actively engage, contribute and learn.

Further reading:

“Would you say that to me in class?” Online Disinhibition and the Effects on Learning

What are the effects of benign, inappropriate or even toxic student-to-student or student-to-instructor exchanges in online learning communities? How do such exchanges affect learning outcomes?  It’s a topic that’s had little attention from researchers and educators, but as learning continues to scale-up with online and open communities educators need to be paying attention, examining and addressing such interactions. This post shares highlights from a recent paper, Would you ever say that to me in class?”: Exploring the Implications of Disinhibition for Relationality in Online Teaching and Learning.

images

‘Angry’ from iStock

“As Suler (2004) observes, people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say and do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel less restrained, and express themselves more openly. So pervasive is the phenomenon that a term has surfaced for it: the online disinhibition effect.”  (Rose, 2014)

When reading the paper “Would you ever say that to me in class?”, I considered my experiences as an online student—having more than one exchange, though not toxic, that were strong enough to leave a sting—dampening my enthusiasm for engaging and participating with my classmates. I’ve since worked with students and faculty that have experienced similar exchanges. Though not all reach the toxic level, there have been instances where faculty encountered students using strong and offensive language, requiring the removal of offensive posts within discussion forums and other actions.

Lack of civility in online forums within learning communities is manageable in small, closed online learning communities where an instructor is in control of a class of up to thirty, or even forty students. However, as classes expand, with MOOCs, and other types of learning communities growing, in combination with platforms that allow anonymity (such as Coursera) it will become an issue for educators [and their institutions] involved in online learning at some time or another. Peers within my network have shared their experiences as students and instructors within MOOCs that involve politically charged or contentious subject matters where discussion forums are fraught with offensive, even toxic comments and vitriol discussion.  It is for this reason that I write this post; to provoke thought and discussion in order for educators to be proactive and develop appropriate strategies.

COI-ANIM-300x233

Community of Inquiry via coi.athabscau.ca

More so because online behavior in learning communities is complex.  On one hand, a sense of presence, or “being there” is critical to deep and meaningful learning and thus needs to be encouraged. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) is a well-researched framework (Garrison, 2007) that addresses three dimensions of presence—social, instructor and cognitive that are deemed necessary for higher education students to experience deep learning in online environments.

Yet on the other, the CoI framework, due to its two-dimensional nature, does not give us insight into the type of exchanges, the tone behind the student-to-student exchanges online and how they might affect learning. Just as tone of voice, eye contact and body language affect verbal communication—word choice, characters used, even font size and type, (e.g. CAPITAL LETTERS), in text exchanges affect meaning of a message conveyed in an online space. Yet some students will exhibit online disinhibition, emboldened by lack of personal contact, distance and in some cases anonymity. Such behavior can wreak havoc within a learning community—can discourage participants, damage student confidence, stall, or impede learning.

In open learning situations that are not controlled by any one individual due to a connectivist learning approach or student-centered focus for example, dealing with such behavior is challenging, though not impossible. Swift and deliberate action is required by one or more individuals. Even in controlled settings, on a closed platform, or within a small learning community, action is required to preserve a learning climate and community.

Highlights from the Paper:

Below are highlights from “Would you ever say that to me in class?”: Exploring the Implications of Disinhibition for Relationality in Online Teaching and Learning.”

  • The study is qualitative in nature. Analysis of data collected from two universities, from undergraduate and graduate students revealed “instructors’ and students’ experiences of connection with, or disconnection from, each other were profoundly influenced by the phenomenon of online disinhibition.
  • Students recounted stories of class peers turning “ugly” or “abusive” in online posts, making “personal attacks” against classmates, even “swearing at people, calling them idiots and stuff like that.” One student, attributed this tendency to people’s comfort with the online environment: “something that was surprising to me was that people were comfortable enough with the environment to lose a sense of decorum…like they just lost it.”
  • In most of the students’ stories, arguments and disruptive behaviour were seen as the direct result of the kinds of miscommunications that occur in online environments, where paralinguistic cues such as facial expressions and tone of voice are not available to clarify meaning.
  • Online disinhibition is also associated with positive outcomes— In some cases, the student-to-student or student-to-instructor relationship may be enriched—for example, when a student shares an experience that personalizes and thus deepens the learning for everyone, or when a shy student opens up.
  • In other cases, the relationship may be inevitably damaged, as when a student confides something she or he later regrets, or says something that other students consider inappropriate or offensive.

Conclusions
Online disinhibition is a phenomenon that affects not only learning exchanges in online communities, but social (e.g. Twitter) and gaming platforms, etc. Yet learning environments need a special layer of protection that goes beyond a ‘report abuse’ option that exists within most online platforms, e.g. Facebook and Twitter. Learning in online communities requires a level of trust, familiarity, and has associated with it an expectation of a ‘safe’ zone. How can educators create a safe learning community in a closed, online class? What about in an open learning community, in a MOOC?  Answers to questions like these depend upon the learning community, the participants, the purpose of the learning and other factors. But it is up to us as educators to look for answers; we need to have strategies and built-in mechanisms within the different types of online learning communities that will provide [albeit wide] guard rails to foster, yet protect a climate of learning and development.

I’ll be writing more about this topic, specifically anonymity in online learning communities. Stay tuned!

References:

 

Need-to-Know-News: Move over edX — Make Room for Unizin, University of the Future, & Tech Lessons from Teens

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.

unizin-logo1

unizin.org

1. Big Changes for Universities with Unizin
Launched this week, Unizin is BIG news in higher ed. Unizin is a membership-based consortium for universities that provides its members with a digital, cloud-based platform and IT services specific to higher education institutions. It moves the discussion far beyond MOOCs; and though MOOCs have sparked discussion in higher ed, they’ve not moved the direction for the traditional model of higher education very far. Yet Unizin may be the platform to bring about the positive effects of technology applied to higher education institutions that MOOCs have yet to do. The platform includes a Learning Management System (Canvas), has capabilities for learning analytics, and facilitates the sharing of resources and content between universities and faculty. For member institutions, each will have control over their own content, and have access to the tools and services to support digital learning for residential, flipped classroom, online courses/degrees, badged experiences for Alumni, or even MOOCs.

Insights: Why it’s a BIG deal. Unizin is a proactive approach to the pressures facing higher education institutions. It not only puts universities in control, but provides a vehicle for individual institutions to achieve economies of scale, by joining forces and sharing cost burdens for licenses, services for infrastructure, and leveraging input and even content and knowledge between institutions. After reading the in-depth analysis of the Unizin deal over on e-literate by Phil Hill and Michael Feldstein, I can see great amount of strategic planning, thought and expertise behind the consortium, which I won’t go into detail here, but encourage interested readers to refer to.  What I will say is that one of the founders of Unizin, Brad Wheeler, CIO for Indiana University, sees the opportunity and need for a robust digital infrastructure platform for higher education institutions of which they are in control of. He outlines a viable strategy that aims to keep institutions relevant, while preserving its values by describing four different models in the paper, Speeding Up on Curves. It’s well worth the read.

Finding Path to Scale  — take advantage of the economics to get there, (don’t go because it’s fun), strategies have focused on independence, recently dependence, but to get there, it’s interdependence that is the path to scale.  Brad Wheeler: The Path to Scale, Vimeo

2.  University of the Future? What the Students Say
Laureate International Universities, commissioned Zogby Analytics to survey students at higher education institutions within the Laureate’s network around the world, about their attitudes and visions of the university of the future. The questions focused on course design, scheduling, job preparation, placement, internships and more.  The results are surprising. The survey included 20,800 students from 37 institutions in 21 countries, making it one of the largest international survey of student attitudes.

Highlights:

  • Students see flexibility. More than 52% of the respondents believe that courses will be offered at all times of the day or night, and 44% believe that courses will be offered without fixed schedules to accommodate students who work or prefer learning at non-traditional times.
  • Collaborative learning. More than 54% of students predict that courses will be primarily collaborations between students with an emphasis on group projects. Additionally, 43% believe that students will be able to access personalized instruction or tutoring online.
  • Focus on Jobs. 61% of students believe that courses will be designed by industry experts, and 64% predict courses will be offered in multiple languages. More than 70% think career-oriented skills (not just subject matter) will be emphasized.

Insights: When considering the strategic goals of Unizin, and Brad Wheeler’s paper Speeding Up on Curves in conjunction with the visions of the university of the future, you can see a match. This as a positive sign for Unizin given it’s focus on building on infrastructure to support the models for educating students that bends the traditional one, and goes beyond the MOOC.

3. Ditch the Email: How to Use Tech Like a Teenager
The Wall Street Journal published a great article this week about tech and how we (adults) use it. Did you know that only 6% of teens exchange email daily, according to the Pew Research Center? And that many of the new apps out there do a far better job at managing clear and efficient communication? Apparently true. There’s Facebook messenger, iMessage, WhatsApp and Kik.

Also, teens are far more privacy savvy than we give them credit for—over 58% of teen social-media users say they cloak their messages, according to Pew.  Parents (adults), it seems, don’t know it all after all.

That’s it for now. You can keep up to date with developments in education and related sectors by following me on Twitter, @OnlineLearningI 

What Marshall McLuhan’s ‘Global Village’ Tells Us About Education Technology in 2014

imgresThe Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century (1989) published posthumously, is one of Marshall McLuhan’s best works. It’s quite remarkable how this book published over twenty years ago, provides the reader with a contemplative perspective on the role of technology in 2014. While reading, I found myself thinking about educational technology quite differently—thinking more about the effects, nuances, and implications technology has beyond education. Effects on relationships, learning (and teaching) in the context of our culture and long-term implications for society in general. The book is about far more than education, it delves into technology and its influence on communication patterns, family structures, and entertainment. The book prompts reflection and forward thinking at the same time.

McLuhan was a Canadian philosopher and educator of communication theory, and considered a public intellectual of his time. His work on media theory is still studied today. The Global Village was a culmination of his years of work on media, a collaborative effort between McLuhan and long-time friend and colleague Bruce Powers. It summarizes McLuhan’s lifelong exploration and analysis of media, culture and man’s relationship with technology.

250px-MediaTetrad.svg

McLuhan designed the tetrad as a pedagogical tool to of examine the effects on society of any technology/medium by dividing its effects into four categories and displaying them simultaneously.

McLuhan and Powers introduce a framework for analyzing media via a tetrad. A tetrad is any set of four things; McLuhan uses the tetrad as a pedagogical tool for examining an artifact or concept (not necessarily a communication medium) through a metaphoric lens, which according to McLuhan translates to “two grounds and two figures in dynamic and analogical relationship to each other”. You can see how the idea can stretch one’s cognitive processes. The framework began to make more sense to me when reviewing the tetradic glossary at the end of the book which examines twenty or more ideas and artifacts through the tetrad framework, including periodic tables, a clock, cable television, and the telephone.  McLuhan designed four questions to explore a medium under analysis using the tetrad framework:

  1. What does the medium enhance?
  2. What does the medium make obsolete?
  3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?
  4. What does the medium flip into when pushed to extremes?

Wouldn’t it be challenging in a media and communications class, or even in an education theory class to have students apply the tetrad structure to current technological tools and applications? How might the iPhone be viewed? Or Twitter? Though provoking to say the least.

The more I read of McLuhan’s work, and about McLuhan himself, the more I believe this man was a genius. He predicts not only events, but how media tools and advancements in technology affect society as a whole—that no one could have imagined or even considered in the 70′s and 80′s. Yet McLuhan could almost see into the future, see how our society is shaped and influenced good and bad by technology.

Worthwhile [short] Clips to Watch on McLuhan’s Views on Technology

Screen Shot 2014-06-09 at 12.36.00 PM

‘Technology is not just a happenstance…’ video clip via marshallmcluhanspeaks.com

Further Reading:

Need-to-Know-News: What’s Trending Now and How it Affects Education

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.

change-architect-sign1

Each year leaders, entrepreneurs, and analysts from a range of sectors, including technology, healthcare, and business closely analyze Mary Meeker’s Internet Trends report. I’m optimistic that many leaders within the education sector are part of this group and are analyzing Meeker’s ‘trends’ and considering the implications for their own institutions and the future of education in general.  Meeker is a former Wall Street analyst and partner in a venture capitalist firm, which contributes to her expansive research of global industries, insight and acumen that come together in her much-anticipated annual slideshare. It’s packed full of statistics and facts, and I’ve no doubt readers will find something of interest (Meeker’s full slideshare is below).

Meeker devotes a handful of her 164 slide presentation to education (#23 – 28). There’s not many surprises, yet the real value comes when considering where the education sector is now in light of what’s in the rest of the report.  I highlight three themes that may impact providers and educators working within higher education.

Screen Shot 2014-05-30 at 3.01.03 PM

Screenshot of slide 9 displaying chart of Global Mobile Usage

I. Mobile Computing is BIG:

  • Mobile computing continues to grow; fueled by decreasing costs of devices and internet access
  • People’s lives are entwined, virtually embedded in their mobile devices. Apps facilitate users to socialize, communicate, share, track physical activities, etc.
  • Mobile use expanding globally, led by Asia and Africa

Implications for education: Education institutions need to meet students on their mobile device, i.e. creating apps and a platforms that allow students to study, register for classes, communicate with tech, homework and other support 24/7  •  Opportunity exists to reach students in countries where education is inaccessible due to geography or cost • Delivering quality education on mobile platform, that is regionally specific and relevant, will be the next challenge for education institutions • Opportunities are endless, too many to mention in this brief post

II. Cybersecurity in the Spotlight:

  • Millions of resources, dollars will be invested by businesses, government, non-profit institutions, banking and more to combat the pressing and increasing threats to security of government intelligence, business, financial and personal data.

Implications for education: Who will prepare the next generation of workers needed to address Cybersecurity? •  Will our institutions be ready to educate students in diverse areas to address the challenges? • Programs of study that go beyond computer science, and expand to ethics, communication, law, computer science engineering, etc.

III. Tablet and Smartphone growth.

  • Laptop and desktop sales continue to decline—mobile device growth, both smart phone and tablets continue to rise globally.

Implications for education: Students will show up on campus, [and are already], with more than one device, putting demands on brick-and-mortar institutions’ infrastructure to support demand for bandwidth • Big opportunities [driven by student demand] for education institutions and educators to integrate, embed mobile device use in classroom and distance learning •  E-textbooks likely to take over hard cover texts within next few years, affecting how students interact with content • Increase in interaction with classmates, faculty, administrators, facilitated by mobile device and apps such as whatsapp, allowing for customized, personalized learning.

2. Three Trends in Non-Traditional Education

The American Council on Education’s (ACE), shared via its blog three trends specific to non-traditional students —a vast share of the higher education market. As per the blog post, Three Trends Worth Watching for Continuing Education Leaders on May 5, 2014:

I. Variable Wrap-Around Services and Flexible Tuition Models
Non-traditional students represent a wide range of sub-populations and their needs are as varied as their characteristics and experiences. There is no one size that fits all for these students, so institutions need to be flexible and innovative in serving them.

II. Analytics and Data-Driven Management
As more tools to measure all aspects of institutional performance become available, it’s increasingly possible for colleges and universities to use that data to improve student learning outcomes and improve decision-making. This trend will only grow as more performance measurement tools become available.

III.  Alternative Credentials
The four-year degree is the gold standard and will continue to be for some time…However, many new forms of non-degree credentials have emerged that may be helpful to many students in the current educational and economic contexts. Though most students will pursue associate or bachelor degrees, others now have the option to earn high-quality certificates with labor market value. Still other students may consider a series of highly specialized micro-credentials recognized by employers.

Implications for education: Non-traditional students are the primary driver of changes in higher education. MOOC growth for example, is not fueled by undergraduate-age students, but by working adults, professionals and educated individuals. Mature students continue to seek education and credentials for specific and job-related skill sets as technological advancements increase access and reduce costs. Institutions interested in serving this population, need to be ready with adequate support services and infrastructure.

3.  Zappos Ditches the Traditional Recruiting Method, the Job Posting

Zappos, an off-shoot of Amazon, embodies the new generation of workplaces; offering an offbeat work environment, unique culture, and way of doing business.

Now it’s turned recruiting upside down. Who needs traditional [and mundane]  job postings? Instead Zappos encourages potential applicants to become ‘insiders’, where the applicant, or real person as Zappos states, gets to know how the company works and the culture before even sending a resume, which is also now passé.

Screenshot  ZAPPOS web page, 'Insider FAQ' inviting potential applicants to become an 'Insider' and join a team.  It's  Zappos alternative to the 'careers' page on a company website.

Screenshot ZAPPOS web page inviting potential applicants to become an ‘Insider’ and join a team.  It’s  Zappos alternative to the ‘careers’ page on a company website.

You’re not just a number; you’re a real person with a real personality and real skills and we want to treat you that way by getting to know you before making any decisions one way or the other. This is your chance to shine and show us how perfect you’d be for Zappos. And we recognize that this getting-to-know-you stuff is a two-way street!   Zappos, Insider FAQ

Implications for education: Why have I included this news story readers may wonder. Because it is an example of how organizations are taking a traditional and routine function common to an organization, recruiting, hiring and training new employees in this instance, and reinventing the process. Zappos identified the problem, what wasn’t working in its hiring practices, determined how the traditional process was outdated in the context of today’s culture, and reinvented the function. Note, they are still hiring candidates, yet they are going about it in a completely different way; using a method that fits the needs of the culture in which we live. I need not elaborate further to draw parallels to the processes and functions within higher education.

That’s it for now. You can keep up to date with developments in education and related sectors by following me on Twitter, @OnlineLearningI 

How to Create a Video Strategy for MOOCs: Costs and Considerations

“Harvard has built what amounts to be an in-house production company to create massive open online courses, or MOOCs…[it] has two video studios, more than 30 employees, and many freelancers — an astonishing constellation of producers, editors, videographers, composers, animators, typographers, and even a performance coach to help professors get comfortable in front of a camera.The Boston Globe

Harvardx Studio Filming for MOOC

In the HarvardX video production studio, Harvard historian & museum curator being filmed for a MOOC.  Image credit: Katherine Taylor for The Boston Globe

I saw scores of dollar signs when I read about Harvard’s production studios created solely for the purpose of producing videos for MOOCs to put on the edX platform. The article featured in The Boston Globe about Harvard’s new studio, describes videos that share traits similar to documentaries rather than the typical lecture videos featuring a professor speaking to the camera, typical of xMOOCs. Here’s the catch though, the money spent on these production costs for MOOC videos, which is dear, may not always be worth the investment according to recent studies (Guo, Kim & Rubin, 2014), (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014).

For readers considering, or are in the process of developing a MOOC I’ve outlined guidelines that will help in the development of an instructional strategy for the delivery of the course content for xMOOCs (MOOC featured on a platform such as Coursera or Open2Study).  I’ve drawn from recent research on video production and student engagement specific to xMOOCs—one study out of MIT using data from edX, and the other a noteworthy report released this May “MOOCs: Expectations and Realities”.

Following are considerations and questions to guide the development and choice of the content delivery methods, including videos for MOOCs. Don’t be misled by the flashy [and expensive] studios that Harvard established, thinking that this is a requirement for putting on effective MOOCs. This high bar set by Harvard, may be unjustified, more so when analyzing why institutions choose to offer MOOCs, and how they fit into the vision, and long-term strategy. For the most part institutions’ reasons for offering MOOCs are vague, and few establish metrics to measure the effectiveness of MOOCs, including return on investment, as discussed in Hollands & Tirthali’s report:

“…Most institutions are not yet making any rigorous attempt to assess whether MOOCs are more or less effective than other strategies to achieve these goals.

The Numbers $$$
The two primary cost drivers of MOOC production are the hours invested by faculty members, administrators, instructional designers, technical support and the costs associated with the quality and type of delivery method for the course content. Videos, the typical mode for xMOOCs, can range between high and low production values. The estimated costs for high quality video production is $4,300 per hour of finished video (Hollands & Tirthali, p 11). High quality video production typically involves a team of at least five video experts each involved in one aspect of the process, including  filming, sound, lighting, editing and project management.

  • Development costs of MOOC vary significantly: as low as $38,980, Teacher’s College, Columbia University, to a range between $203,770 – $325,330, Large Midwestern University (Hollands & Tirthali, p 12)
  • Harvard’s costs as per the Boston article, $75,000 and $150,000, though depending upon the method for calculating, it’s difficult to compare to the study quoted above.
philip-guo-edx-first-blog-figure

Chart showing student viewing time in minutes.

Guiding Questions and Considerations for Creating a Video Strategy

  • Consider goals for each module/week within the MOOC when planning for content delivery. What delivery method will communicate content to students effectively? Is there an opportunity for student-developed or student-curated [and shared] content sources?
  • Consider a variety of content delivery methods: video, open source content (video and other), interactive online resources, etc.
  • If using video, consider between formats, tutorial-style (illustrating a procedure, step-by-step, i.e. Khan Academy-style) and lecture.  Within each format there are variations influenced by filming technique [screen cast, podcast, filming on laptop, studio, etc], media choices, etc. Research shows students engage differently with each (Guo, Kim & Rubin).
  • Consider: the average engagement time of any MOOC lecture video maxes out at 6 minutes, some as few as 4. However, students engage with tutorials quite differently, often pausing, re-watching, fast-forwarding, etc. (Guo, Kim & Rubin).
  • Are there existing open and accessible content sources on the web that can illustrate a course concept [rather than filming from scratch]?
  • Call students to action to use and apply content from video, i.e. via a  discussion forum or upcoming assignment.
  • Finally, plan the strategy upfront where: 1) each content delivery mode (video, etc) is planned by module/week (content is outlined and scripted when necessary), 2) content within delivery mode links directly to goals of given week, and 3) there is a requirement for students to apply and use the content, for example in discussion forum, assignment or quiz.

References:

Further Reading:

How and Why Institutions are Engaging with MOOCs…Answers in Report “MOOCs: Expectations and Reality”

How do institutions use MOOCs; and to what end?  •  Why do institutions pay thousands of dollars to develop and offer a MOOC on an external platform?  •  How do institutions determine the effectiveness of their MOOC efforts?  •  What are the costs associated with producing and delivering a MOOC?

All good questions; questions that policymakers, administrators and other stakeholders within higher education institutions that are considering MOOCs or already engaged with, want [or should want] answers to. The 200+ page report “MOOCs: Expectations and Reality” by Hollands and Tirthali of Columbia University attempt to answer these questions by surveying 83 faculty members, administrators, researchers and other actors within 69 education institutions. The report delivers on the promise of its title—how and why institutions engage, and provides the reader with even more insights.

The report is meaty, worthy of review for anyone with a vested interest in MOOCs of any type. In this post I provide a brief overview of the report, but focus specifically on one aspect of the ‘how‘. I highlight the resources required to develop a MOOC—how many people it requires, the job titles, the [estimated] costs associated with development. This may be useful for readers considering developing a MOOC for a platform such as Coursera or another, or for a cMOOC using a collective course design approach. This report brings into focus just how resource-hungry MOOCs are, and after reading the report, readers considering developing or contributing to the development of a MOOC might feel enlightened, encouraged, or perhaps even discouraged; at the very least, will have a better understanding of MOOCs and their place in higher education institutions.

 Overview

Who sponsored the report?  The Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education (CBCSE), a research center at the Teachers College at Columbia University. The mission of the center is “to improve the efficiency with which public and private resources are employed in education“.  Note: the report is open and available for download.

Purpose of the Study: Given the work of the CBCSE, and its pursuit of improvement of cost efficiency in education, the report is an extension of its mission. The purpose as outlined in the report, “the study serves as an exploration of  the goals of institutions creating or adopting MOOCs and how these institutions define effectiveness of  their MOOC initiatives“.

Screen Shot 2014-05-19 at 9.50.39 PM

Figure 1 ‘MOOCs: Expectations and Reality’ (p 22)

Report Snapshot:  The report sample includes 83 administrators, faculty members and researchers, all of which were interviewed, at 62 institutions. The institutions: public and private universities, community colleges, platform providers, research organizations, for-profit education companies and a selection of institutions deemed ‘other’ including one museum (p 180). Of the 62 institutions in the sample, 29 at the time of the study were offering or using MOOCs in some way; the remaining were either not participating or taking a wait-and-see position.

Why a MOOC? One of the reasons this report is instructive for the education community is the inclusion of the data about why institutions offer MOOCs. Many have asked why some institutions (several public higher education institutions) have spent thousands of dollars, invested considerable resources into this method of education delivery to the masses that has yet to be evaluated and tested for effectiveness. The chart below summarizes the six reasons identified.

Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 8.25.43 AM

‘MOOCs: Expectations and Reality’ (Hollands & Tirthali, p 8)

The above table is merely a snapshot.  Each goal is described in further detail within the report. A case study featuring an institution accompanies each which gives a contextual example of the reasons.

A snapshot of How? MOOCs are resource intensive efforts, and the report validates this. Development of a MOOC, and the facilitation of the course once its live (accessible to students) requires significant amounts of time and energy from individuals across several departments within the institution. The faculty member (or members) acting as the subject matter expert for the MOOC requires a team, each with different areas of expertise to support him or her in bringing the content to life and creating an environment of learning for hundreds, if not thousands of course participants.

“Number of faculty members, administrators, and instructional support personnel involved MOOC production teams seldom included fewer than five professionals and, in at least one instance described to us, over 30 people were involved. Faculty members typically reported spending several hundred hours in the production and delivery of a single MOOC” (p 11)

Example of Human Resources Requirements: Case Study 11

Case study 11 provides an excellent example of the commitment of resources needed for developing a course for a MOOC platform which in this example is Coursera. The institution in the case is an unnamed MidWestern University (p 144). The school invited faculty with prior media experience to develop a five to eight week MOOC. This study is representative of the human resources required for development of a MOOC.

Human resources requirements by job title for course development of a MOOC:

2 x Faculty Members: (Subject Matter Experts)

1 x Project Manager: Leads the project, coordinates all elements of development. Liaise with departments as needed within the institution. Manages the project timetable; keeps project on time and on budget

4 x Curriculum Design Team Instructional Designer (works with faculty to present course content and create a learning environment with it on the course home page). • Instructional Technologist (works with instructional designer) • Video Production Liaison (works with faculty member in production of videos, and liaise with video production team)

5 x Video Production Team:  Production Manager •  Camera operators/equipment technicians • Audio-technician

In this case study, videos were produced at a high quality, using a full video design team. The final costs were calculated using records from the institutions, though the report authors made some estimates due to lack of detail on some aspects of human resource inputs.

Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 8.59.34 AM

‘MOOCs: Realities and Expectations’ (p 144). One of the two data tables accompanying case study #11. Table 7 gives the range of hours spent on MOOC design (p 144)

Lecture Videos: Costs and Student Engagement
One of the primary drivers of costs in MOOC development (for platforms such as Coursera, FutureLearn, etc.) is video production. The more complex the video, for instance addition of graphics, multiple cameras used for shooting, post-filming editing, the higher the costs. Low-tech efforts,  where there might be one camera person, or even the faculty member self-recording on his or her laptop requires far fewer resources.  Some institutions seek a higher quality finished product, which in turn demands a high level of production using a team of video professionals. Accordingly, the costs vary dramatically. ‘MOOCs: Expectation and Realities’ estimates high quality video production at $4,300 per hour of finished video (p 11).

One may be tempted to think that the higher the video quality, the better the learning outcomes. However a report published recently by EDUCAUSE, What Makes an Online Instructional Video Compelling? suggests that students engagement with videos relies upon several factors, including whether or not the video links to an assignment within the course. Furthermore, the average viewing time of videos is less than five minutes (Hibbert, 2014). What this suggests is that videos presenting content must be carefully and strategically planned for during the course development phase, and tied closely to the instructional strategy. Higher production costs does not necessarily mean higher student engagement or learning outcomes.

Closing Thoughts

The report discussed here, ‘MOOCs: Expectation and Realities’ is an important contribution to the MOOC discussion in higher education. In my opinion one of the greatest benefits of the report is the spotlight it puts on the resources required for developing a MOOC, in contrast to the reasons why institutions engage with MOOCs. When one examines closely the reasons, it appears that the amount of resources invested, in some cases is extreme. I agree with the authors in the point they make in the executive summary,

” [we]…conclude that most institutions are not yet making any rigorous attempt to assess whether MOOCs are more or less effective that other strategies to achieve these goals” (p 11).

I’ll add one more point to this, and that’s the need for a complete and comprehensive approach to course design, (applicable to any course) that involves from the beginning, a thorough needs analysis that determines the goals of the organization and how the [potential] course fits into it. It’s only after this analysis that the course design process can proceed.

References:

Hibbert, M. (2014). What Makes an Online Instructional Video Compelling?. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/what-makes-online-instructional-video-compelling

Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: expectations and reality. Full report. Center for Benefit- Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY.  Retrieved from: http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf