Why MOOCs Are Hindering and Not Helping Higher Ed

mooc_web_final_wheel03The Chronicles’ web-diagram Major players in the MOOC Universe published this week, though beautiful to look at, adds to the confusion about what MOOCs are and are not. This confusion is no doubt a significant hindrance to constructive dialogue that educators are having about online learning; including how to leverage technology to improve access, quality and lower costs. The Chronicle is not alone in [unknowingly] promoting myths about MOOCs, which is not helping to move the discussions forward.

Several institutions and platforms associated with MOOCs quite often have little to do with MOOCs.  Khan Academy for instance, and even San Jose University’s pilot project San Jose State Plus are two programs that don’t follow the MOOC model. These misconceptions among others, divert attention away from the instructional and pedagogical models that can provide solutions. Online learning in small classes for example. Small online classes do not resemble MOOCs at all. The closed, online class, with a sound instructional plan, allows faculty to provide feedback and support to students, as well as provide opportunities for small group collaboration guided by the instructor. Another format, the blended model, combines face-to-face class time with web-based instruction. The blended model has proven to be effective in reducing costs and maintaining, and in some cases improving learning outcomes over traditional instructional methods. For further reading on blended learning click here.

San Jose Pilot Program: Not a MOOC
One significant error in recent articles, the Chronicles’ diagram included, is identifying San Jose State University as a MOOC player. There is a partnership between San Jose and Udacity as the link in the image shows, though the connection involves a pilot project with three math courses co-created between the two. Yet the courses are not MOOCs; they  don’t adhere to the MOOC model whatsoever. The classes in San Jose’s pilot were not massive—each had less than 100 students. Classes were closed—open only to high school students, community college students and members of the armed forces. Enrolled students participated within the schools’ learning platform where they could engage in discussion forums with the professor and peers. Yet the key differential was the academic support available to students. Students had access to a help line, instructor-facilitated peer meetings and even outreach counselors for those struggling with the content. Far from a MOOC, this model does provide the instructional support and feedback necessary for a successful college-level learning experience. Furthermore, San Jose’s pilot is an excellent example of a model for online learning that can be effective, though many outsiders are unaware of its instructional strategy.

Khan Academy: Also not a MOOC
Though Khan Academy is often described as a MOOC, it’s not even close. It’s not the first time that Khan Academy has been classified as a MOOC. Khan Academy is a robust library of open education resources that can be accessed by students, institutions, or anyone—for free. That’s it. It’s not a course with a start date and end date. Though it does include resources for teachers to build an instructional strategy of their own, the platform primarily is a repository for a collection of short videos that focus on a specific topic. No MOOCs here. Even Sal Khan emphasizes that his platform is not MOOC, but is what he calls a “transplantation” of a traditional course.

MOOC Players that Aren’t
Cathy Davidson, professor at Duke and founder of Hastac appears to be associated with the MOOC players as per The Chronicles’ diagram. Yet Dr. Davidson has little if anything to do with the MOOC movement. She was part of a small group that crafted a controversial Bill of Rights for online students, yet her involvement ends there. Davidson was quite surprised to find herself featured in the lineup of individuals associated with MOOCs in the web-diagram, describing it as “comical” in a blog post on Hastacs’ site—and even admits to feeling ambivalent towards MOOCs, with “more than a healthy degree of skepticism”.

Technology is a Tool
My point here is not to highlight all that is wrong with the web-diagram in question, or the reporting of the issues elsewhere, but to emphasize that misconceptions about online learning, MOOCS included, that are likely impeding constructive conversations within education circles. The Chronicle and other news organizations are not intentionally writing to deceive, but are caught up in MOOC mania as we all are. MOOCs will not solve the challenges of access, cost control and quality that institutions are struggling with, yet we need to be well informed about the technology, and what it can deliver.  It’s also helpful to remember that technological applications are tools to solve problems. The first step is identifying and analyzing what the problem is, determining the needs, then analyzing potential solutions thoroughly before jumping to a solution. Starting with the solution, and working backwards rarely works.

Need-to-Know News: A MOOC Contest, the Week of Open, and California’s Bold Move

In this ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series my goal is to share noteworthy stories with readers that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform the traditional model of education.

MP900405500There are three hot topics creating much buzz this week in education around the world including 1) a MOOC contest with a stipend of €25,000 that is open to scholars from around the world that seeks to find the ten most creative and innovative MOOCs, 2) Open Education Week with new courses for learners and webinars for scholars offered around the clock, and 3) California’s bold announcement that’s rocking higher education institutions in California, and perhaps other public higher education institutions across the United States.

1) Calling all Instructors and Professors: A MOOC Contest
There is a contest for building a better MOOC—or at least building one that is sustainable and innovative. The contest is offered by the MOOC Production Fellowship sponsored by the open learning platform iversity and Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft. iversity is a learning management platform created by group of scholars based in Berlin.

The essence of the contest—the organization is looking for creative, yet sustainable courses to be offered in the open format, which means there are no barriers to entry, on the platform iversity, beginning in Fall 2013. My guess is that this contest is in part, an effort to promote iversity, which from what I gather is designed to be everything that traditional platforms aren’t. You can find out more about the contest by visiting the website, and I’ve highlighted the key points below:

  • A €25,000 fellowship will be awarded to 10 groups/teams with the most innovative MOOCs. The selection committee [jury] is a panel of nine that appears to be mostly scholars, though the web page states that there will be consideration of a public voting phase. I would like to have seen one or more students on the voting committee—a mix of individuals without advanced degrees that would be representative of potential MOOC participants.
  • Applications must be in German or English, though courses can be in any language.
  • Fellowship funds can be used for production costs, research and/or student assistants, equipment or a teaching buyout.

Further Reading:

5093053155_515aedf1e82)  Week of Open: March 11 – 15
I realize that Open Education Week is almost over, though there are many resources worthy of review, including the newly launched School of Open which resides on the P2PU platform.  There are also several webinars that cover various topics of related to open, offered on Friday, March 15—check out the schedule link below.

Further Reading:

  • Schedule of Events,  All events are in GMT time, check the time on the top right hand corner of the web page for a link to the time converter.
  • Open Education Week Website
  • The launch of School of Open, on P2PU which features numerous courses on  topics that all deal with openness and sharing on the Web, including Introduction to Open Science, which I was involved in developing with Creative Commons.
  • Resources for learning about and accessing Open content.
  • Check out the Twitter stream, #openeducationwk

3) California on the Move Again
The newswires are hot this week with an announcement made on Wednesday of proposed legislation that will affect three systems in California that provide public higher education which would mandate that public schools give credit for faculty-approved online courses taken by students that can’t register for the needed courses in the face-to-face classes on campus. This is big news, it leaves the door open for many possibilities, and though a step in the right direction, there will be challenges. Thoughts and highlights:

1) Online courses [a list of approximately 50 introductory courses] from a variety of providers may be accepted, not just MOOC providers, but courses offered through online providers such as StraighterLine, and independent colleges that offer online general education courses, of which there are hundreds. The latter format differs significantly from a MOOC—these are closed, online classes which use different pedagogical methods [I touched upon this topic in this post]. Below is a selection of text from the Bill:

(b) For purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:(1) “Online courses of study” means any of the following: (A) Online teaching, learning, and research resources, including, but not necessarily limited to, books, course materials, video materials, interactive lessons, tests, or software, the copyrights of which have expired, or have been released with an intellectual property license that permits their free use or repurposing by others without the permission of the original authors or creators of the learning materials or resources. [Bill SB 520]

2) There is the possibility that other states will follow, or at least there may be pressure for many to do so.
3) The wording, faculty-approved, is significant, as it could create a laborious and lengthy process in itself to approve courses.

We want to be the first state in the nation to make this promise: No college student in California will be denied the right to move through their education because they couldn’t get a seat in the course they needed,” said Darrell Steinberg, the president pro tem of the Senate, who will introduce the bill. “That’s the motivation for this.” (Lewin, 2013)

Further Reading:

Closing
Never a dull moment in the world of higher education. Stay tuned for more developments on Twitter @OnlinelineI

Photo Credits: Newspaper Airplane, iStock, and Open Access, PGRsOnline, Flickr

Why and When Peer Grading is Effective for Open and Online Learning

Is peer grading an effective assessment method for open and online learning? What about in MOOCs where student feedback may be the only means of determining a pass or fail in a course? This posts examine peer grading and suggests what conditions must be present in order for peer grading to be effective.

Keeping Score for the TeamAfter I wrote the outline for this post I came across this essay, by history professor Jonathon Rees, Why Peer Grading Can’t Work. The title was in stark contrast to my views on peer grading, but I  incorporated Rees’ argument here as it is worth consideration. Rees is also author of a blog I follow, More or Less Bunk where he writes about current issues within Higher Education often with a slice of sarcasm. Our views on online learning couldn’t be more dissimilar, yet I appreciate Professor Rees’ perspective and enjoy reading his posts. In his essay Rees shares his views on peer grading, which he experienced while taking a world history course as a student through Coursera. Rees’ central argument is that peer grading can’t and won’t be effective in grading written work produced within MOOCs, as the majority of students-as-graders are not able to provide quality feedback that can help students develop their writing and critical thinking skills.

In this post I’ll examine the conditions that need to be present for peer grading to work,   factors that can sabotage the process, and I’ll address the points put forth in Rees’ essay.  I’ll also explore briefly what is at the root of the differing views on peer grading, which I suggest is based on differing perspectives on learning philosophies [which I wrote about it in my last post, The Tale of Two MOOCs: Divided by Pedagogy].

Conflicting Views on How People Learn
At the root of the dissension over peer grading is the conflicting view on how people learn. One of Rees’ comments within the essay “Professors in the trenches tend to hold their monopoly on evaluating their students’ work dearly, since it helps them control the classroom better by reinforcing their power and expertise,” supports a cognitive and instructor-focused learning orientation. The concept of peer review, which leaves for the most part the instructor out of the equation, aligns with the social constructivist learning orientation. There is strong support in constructivist theories for the peer review which is grounded in student-centered learning where students learn as much from the review process itself as from the final grade on an assignment.

A paper on peer review published in 2007 described how the idea of peer review is embedded in the philosophies of learning theorists. The authors call out Vygotsky and his beliefs that learning occurs in, and is mediated by, social interaction. Authors do present the downsides of the peer review process, though at the conclusion of their research they determined that students involved in peer review perform better academically than peers graded only by their instructors (Lu & Bol, 2007).

8220513675_3c7aaea7b2

Peer Grading @ Coursera
When developing a course there are numerous assessment methods instructors can choose from, yet the choice of the tool and method depends upon the learning conditions within the course that include—the planned learning outcomes and the learning environment. An analysis of these conditions determine the best assessment strategy [which may include several methods in one course] for the course and its objectives. Peer grading worked well in the Digital Cultures I completed recently with Coursera in consideration of the learning context—the environment, topic and goals of the course. Also the course was not-for-credit and only five weeks in length.

In Rees’ history course, peer grading was used to evaluate essays, which appeared to be the primary method for assessment. Given the topic of Rees course, essays could be considered an appropriate assessment mechanism given the number of students and the availability of the software available that can facilitate peer grading [see link at the end of this post on Calibrated Peer Review]. Rees admitted the guidelines were clearly outlined as to how to grade, and that the grades he received were accurate, yet it was the quality of comments that he felt was lacking,

For me at least, the primary problem with peer grading lay in the comments. While I received five comments on my first essay, for every subsequent essay I received number grades with no comments from a minimum of two peers and as many as four…Every time I did get a comment, no peer ever wrote more than three sentences. And why should they? Comments were anonymous so the hardest part of the evaluative obligation lacked adequate incentive and accountability. (Rees, 2013)

What can Go Wrong: The Loafers and Others
What Rees shares here is a good example of what can go wrong with peer grading in anonymity in a massive course. Though the algorithms within a peer grading system may work, the problem lies in the uncontrollable learning conditions inherent to a massive course. One example is outlined in Lu & Bol’s paper I quoted earlier, which is the phenomenon of social loafing or hide-in-the crowd behaviours associated with anonymity. Students that fell into this group were physically and cognitively lazy, not contributing to the process as required. This phenomenon was referenced in several other research studies within the paper. I suggest another group be added to the mix besides the loafers— students that cannot provide feedback due to the lack of necessary skills, whether it be education background or language.

iStock_000019698408XSmallWhen Peer Grading is Effective
Peer grading has tremendous value for a variety of learning situations in higher education, though it requires a specific set of learning conditions to be present in order for it to work as intended. Listed below are a list of conditions needed to ensure that peer grading  is effective: 

1) When learners are at a similar skill level.
2) When assignments are low stakes [i.e. when a course is taken for professional development of personal interest as was the Digital Cultures course].
3) Where credit is not granted.
4) When learners are mature, self-directed and motivated.
5) When learners have experience in learning and navigating within a networked setting [if the review is completed in an open and online setting].
6)  Learners have a developed set of communication skills.

The break down in peer grading occurs when the learning environment cannot provide the conditions as mentioned above. Also, there are other factors that can sabotage its effectiveness, including an assignment that requires a high level of critical thinking skills, or when there are students in the mix that are non-participative, or have intentions that don’t align with the course. In my Coursera experience for example, with Digital Cultures, one of the artifacts I was to evaluate in the peer grading process [which was a website] was a marketing pitch. This happened to at least one other student, according to the course Twitter stream.

Closing
Peer grading has great value. It has proven to be effective in variety of education settings. It can work well in MOOCs that are not for credit, when the assignment lends itself to a peer review, such as the digital artifact we graded in our Digital Cultures course. It can also be very effective in small, closed online classes where students are at similar skill level and receive instruction and guidance in how to grade within the process. Yet there are times when it won’t work, this is where I agree with Professor Rees, the situations where students do need detailed and constructive feedback from an instructor, or mentor that is qualified. Furthermore, there are many students that need remedial support in writing and communications skills, some require support in how to learn online, and how to be responsible for their own learning.

Further fine tuning is needed to address some of these issues within MOOCs. I see the opportunity for two or three tracks within a MOOC for students wanting to participate at varying levels, which would address some of the issues with peer grading by addressing some of the required learning conditions as mentioned. Another suggestion is to offer resources for skill development for students requiring help with their writing skills within the course itself, i.e. links to Purdue’s writing center.  Perhaps, addressing students that receive a grade below a certain level in the peer review after the course closes with suggestions for additional writing skill development would be helpful. There are many options still to be explored. Time will tell.

Update: Response post from Professor Rees on More or Less Bunk, here.

References:

How Collaborative Learning Works in Closed Online Courses vs. MOOCs

My previous post about the MOOC disaster at Coursera with the Fundamentals of Online Education [FOE] course generated constructive and worthy discussions among readers that focused on the value and purpose of the MOOC, the role of the instructor and student, and how learning happens within this type of course.

8479415831_f7d16c2bb0

‘The Happening’, by willaryerson, #edcmooc

In this post I explore how collaborative learning works in two types of online courses—one in the all-familiar massive, open and online course, MOOCs, and the other a closed, fee-based course, COLC, which is the acronym I’m using to label a closed, online, for-credit learning, course. There are hundreds of COLCs available from virtually all higher education institutions within the U.S. Visit any higher education institution’s website (Ivy schools excluded) and search for online learning. Following are just a few examples of schools and the availability of COLCs—University of Central Florida, Arizona State University, Michigan State University, University of Delaware, and Penn State University.

Group Work: MOOC versus COLC
Collaborative learning [group work] is a component of COLCs and MOOCs, yet learning with peers occurs differently in each; one is prescribed, controlled and potentially used for assessment purposes, as in the COLC, while in a MOOC learning is often chaotic, student-driven, optional, and not controllable by course facilitators given its thousands of participants. In a COLC, group work is often a method chosen as part of the courses’ instructional strategy, and is part of students final grade. This contrasts to a MOOC where the instructor(s) must relinquish control of the teaching functions normally done in a COLC or a face-to-face class, including controlling how groups form and/or collaborate, grading, and giving feedback on assigned course work.

This topic of collaborative learning in an online space is intriguing and interesting, and I realize how the focus on online learning with MOOCs in recent months has challenged educators, myself included, to examine their previously held beliefs about teaching and learning, models of course design, even pedagogical approaches. This post is an attempt to separate online learning into two types [though there are more], with the goal of  helping readers learn more about collaborative learning and instruction in each learning context.

8475235418_9e5c1b4c89_z

Network Analysis of #edcmooc Facebook group, by anando purutama

The Same, but Different
It is the online aspect, the Web as the platform, that COLC and MOOCs share that make the two similar, yet this is where the similarities end, [granted each is called a course, but the word ‘course’ in itself can be a source of confusion]. It is the underlying purpose of each that draws the line between the two. The COLC is a course that mimics the traditional face-to-face classroom environment; it is controlled by the instructor, has specific objectives, and includes graded assignments of which group participation and a group project might be included in the mix. The COLC is for-credit, with a limited number of students [usually between 10 and 40], where group work is likely and is part of the overall course grading scheme. This contrasts MOOCs where groups are not a requirement and if formed, are spontaneous—as participants find and form groups on social platforms based on common interests.

Collaborative Learning in COLCs
In COLCs collaboration might consist of, small groups that work together on a presentation or case study, participation in threaded discussions, and/or groups that work together to act as ‘moderators’ for class discussion forums. Detailed rubrics are often needed to ‘grade’ quantity and quality of a participation, and with group projects even though each student receives the same grade, students often have the opportunity to grade their peers.

The reason for this effort in outlining the group work so laboriously is to support the deep learning that can happen within online environments through collaboration. Considerable research supports this thesis and I’ve included references to several papers at the end of this post to that end.

The course instructor’s role in creating, monitoring and grading collaborative learning is demanding and intensive. One paper, Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment states,

Kearsley (nd) points to the importance of instructor skill in creating and managing interaction in online courses, particularly when collaborative learning is required. However, he also points out that most people have little formal training in how to successfully interact or work with others and that the social milieu of online activities is quite different from in-person interactions, thus requiring new skills and behaviors.  (Brindley, Walti & Balschke, 2009)

In COLCs when group collaboration or participation is a part of the courses’ instructional strategy, the onus is on the instructor to provide detailed, clear instructions, objectives of the project and the purpose for the group work [how the work supports the goals of the course and student will benefit]. Doing so is necessary as many learners are resistant to the idea of group work, especially in an online environment.  My experience suggests that group work is most successful when detailed guidelines are provided, with specific directions and instructions on how to use and access Web tools and applications for group collaboration and communication. Research supports this – often students have the will to participate but don’t have the necessary skills [including technical skills] to collaborate effectively online (Brindley et al, 2009).

Purpose and Value of Group Work in COLC
I’m convinced that group work in COLCs is necessary, for two reasons:

1) it allows students to learn needed skills, including how to collaborate and communicate effectively in an online environment, and
2) it creates a framework for constructing and/or sharing knowledge in a given subject area that may lead to deeper and more meaning learning.  I say ‘may’ because this is not guaranteed, but this is where the instructor needs to guide and model learning.

I also suggest, COLCs can be the training ground for students to become lifelong learners, with the Web as classroom, yet under the guidance of a course instructor. Students in a COLC can learn how-to-learn in a massive, open and online course, one where the student assumes responsibility, but within a framework and under guidance.

8467249600_9dd33d55f9

Taxedo2, by cathleen_nardi, #edcmooc

Purpose and Value of Groups in a cMOOC
Collaborative learning and communication is needed and an essential dimension within cMOOCs. Participants learn by making connections, through communicating and collaborating with others. cMOOCs are based upon the theory of connectivism created by Downes and Siemens, which is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories (Siemens, 2004). The difference between a COLC and a MOOC is stark. Learning in cMOOCs it is not prescribed but self-organized. Participants drive the course, contribute to it, build it and add content, while facilitators provide the platforms (or meeting places), provide a loose structure with an outline of the course [at the outset at least].

Group Work in MOOCs
Coursera and edX MOOCs are called xMOOCs, so named by Downes to avoid confusion of the two [very different] concepts. As I’ve written about before in various comments on the post about FOE, it was the instructor’s prescriptive approach to group work that derailed the course. With all due respect to the instructor, she appeared to approach the class as a COLC. Instructors cannot control thousands of students on a Web-based platform, just as he or she cannot control plagiarism by posting an honor code on a xMOOC course home page.

However there is some common ground between cMOOCs and xMOOCs—they are massive, open and online, yet institutions such as some of those associated with Coursera and similar platforms are applying a COLC pedagogy to the MOOC format, though the MOOC itself, is conducive to a connectivist philosophy. A different pedagogy is required, yet this is the problem—what is the appropriate pedagogy?

Closing Thoughts
What we do know is that instructors involved with massive courses, with thousands of students can’t control the outcomes of course, can’t direct the learning in a given direction, and can’t use an instructional strategy or methods that work for traditional courses. But the concept of the Web as a classroom, that can bring learning to thousands of individuals that are eager to learn, has tremendous potential for many reasons. Already we have heard of stories from numerous students who have completed one or more MOOCs—about the positive impact this open learning has had on their lives. What the next steps are for higher education institutions that are offering MOOCs, and how they will solve the cost and access concerns in higher ed is yet to be determined.  Stay tuned!

Note: I wrote this post before I had heard of a professor quitting a Coursera MOOC halfway through, yet this post describes why this happened – the professor appeared to want to control the course –the level of students participation and, at times [according to a Twitter conversation], discouraged students from participating. The professor ‘dropped out’ …”Because of disagreements over how to best conduct this course, I’ve agreed to disengage from it, with regret,” Professor McKenzie.  Read more here.

Further Reading and References

Photo Credits: Photos featured in this post are student contributions from the  eLearning and Digital Cultures course offered through Coursera, for the optional assignment in week three. Posted to Flickr, and tagged #edcmooc.

How the Student Voice Can Make Education Better

Young Couple Sitting with a Pile of BooksHow can school be better?  Student answers: “More practical courses (like consumer math, finances, life skills)“, “Internships and real-world experiences“, “Students grouped not by age, but ability and interest“, “High expectations but more freedom” and “Meaningful work [with a] purpose; no more busy work; students need to be able to make connections (esp[ecially] to real-world)”. Student responses in class, IB Theory of Knowledge, as recorded in a teacher’s blog post, FutureSchool: A Teen’s Perspective.

I wrote in my last post about a vision for the future of education—Sal Khan’s vision of a One World Schoolhouse. It seems the education community didn’t take him seriously, reviews were mixed on his idea for reforming K-12 and higher education. Khan proposes K-12 classrooms not be formed on ages or grades, but a mix of students working collaboratively, with opportunities for hands-on [practical] learning. Khan’s view includes setting the bar high for all students, and giving college students real world experience through meaningful internships. Which is why when I read the student comments in the blog post mentioned above, I was intrigued—what students want in education was almost identical to Khan’s vision for education. This got me thinking about the voice of students. Students are perceptive and intelligent. Yet in discussions about education reform, students are often overlooked, not included, or at least not integrated in the process. Their voices are muffled, perhaps even moderated. Furthermore, students rarely have the opportunity to identify factors contributing to real-world problems, to explore and analyze solutions.

Value of the Student Voice
The student voice as mentioned, is garbled at best, which is [unfortunately] a sign of an institution-focused education system. Which brings me to the purpose of this post, to highlight the value of the ‘student voice’ and provide suggestions on how to include students in the reform process. I’ll also share recent sound bites of student voices from recent events in higher education venues.

Stakeholders in Education
Students have a significant stake in the education system, in terms of their time, energy, intellectual development and money. They are primary stakeholders, where stakeholders are defined as individuals or entities who stand to gain or lose from the success or failure of a system or an organization. Other primary stakeholders include faculty, administrators, and government bodies, depending upon the type of institution. There is an outer circle of stakeholders in higher education that includes its surrounding community, businesses, and the vendors and suppliers of products and services that support the institution. K-12 institutions have another unique set of primary and secondary stakeholders that differs from higher education, though the student is still central.

Group of teenage students enjoying outside.The Problem Solving Process
As stakeholders, students have the potential to be a valuable resource in all phases of the reform process. The process, ideally should include not just solutions but steps to address the problem in its entirety:

1) identifying the purpose of  education in the 21st Century.
2) determining the current problem(s) and barriers to achieving the identified purpose.
3) developing alternatives and finding solutions.

Who better than students to describe the school experience, identify what doesn’t work and why, describe what they need to learn and aren’t, explore options for a revised experience, and evaluate alternatives.  I’m speaking here of high school and young adult college students. It is these stakeholders who are experiencing first hand the education provided, and are the ones that are failing, frustrated, dropping out of college and high school, are not prepared for college, are bored, and/or can’t find a job. However, even successful students are perceptive enough to identify with the challenges many of their peers are facing.

The Student Voice in Higher Ed
Granted, some organizations do try to include students in the reform process. Just last month for instance, the Twenty Million Minds Foundation, whose mission is to ‘grow access and success by eliminating unnecessary hurdles to affordability in higher education‘, hosted a day long event with key players [terminology from their website] in California’s higher education system. The event, Re:boot California Higher Education purpose was to bring together a group of stakeholders [policymakers, faculty, politicians, students and representatives from Coursera and Udacity] and discuss key issues regarding the potential for online education and lower the costs for higher education.

Screen Shot 2013-02-13 at 1.46.36 PM

Image from Twenty Million Minds website featuring the Key Players at the event

However, student contribution was minimal. The agenda devoted fifteen minutes to three students speaking of their school experience. The fifteen minutes represented 5% of time allocated to discussion on these issues. Hillary Hill one of the three, spoke as the voice of thousands of students in the California public higher ed system. Hill spoke of the online course she took from a local community college, which apparently was the only way she could get the prerequisite needed to transfer into her major (Selingo, 2013). Hill shed light on the fact that classes are over-crowded, which is delaying time to graduation. I’m not sure this was the most effective use of students time or talent, to state the obvious. Alas, this symposium, like many similar events, featured much discussion, and no action (Watters, 2013).

Another significant event, which occurred recently, the meeting to create a Learner Bill of Rights for Learning in a Digital Age, was most irksome in that it included not one student, but a group of twelve: educators, technologists and journalists including Sebastian Thrun, founder of Udacity and instigator of the event. The goal of the meeting was quite noble “to inspire an open, learner-centered dialogue around the rights, responsibilities, and possibilities for education in the globally connected world of the present and beyond” (Lederman, 2013.)  It was a significant omission [bordering on arrogance] not to include any students in the discussion, which negates the value of this document altogether.

Suggestions for Integrating Students in Problem Solving
I don’t have the answers for transforming education, though I see the potential that lies in student voices that is going unheeded for the most part. This post is meant to encourage readers to consider how students might be part of the bigger picture of education transformation, and problem solving in general. Perhaps strategic analysis and planning skill development needs to be integrated into the curriculum that will teach students to be effective problem solvers. Students would benefit from learning how to identify and analyze  problems and the effects. Perhaps even engage students in real world problems, create teams that work with businesses or organizations where students work together to develop and implement viable solutions. An example of a real-world, hands-on team approach was in the course Designing a New Learning Environment. Though team participants represented a spectrum of ages and professions, college-age students were among the many who contributed.

Conclusion
Students can be part of the solution to transform education, they can identify and analyze problems, provide alternatives and explore solutions. All too often the voice of the student goes unheeded. My hope is that students don’t give up on higher education institutions, will contribute to finding a way to keep education relevant and meaningful for the 21st century, but that goes both ways.

Resources:

How to Create a Personal Learning Portfolio: Students and Professionals

6884659480_ba4592d655_cThis post explores Personal Learning Portfolios [PLPs], an extension of a Personal Learning Environment. I review briefly PLPs for professionals, but focus on the potential and promise that PLPs hold for our students.

I wrote recently about Personal Learning Environments [PLE], Personal Learning Networks [PLN] and the need for educators to develop both as a means to support their professional and personal growth and learning. A PLE can be viewed as a system that is built on the concept of creating a personalized framework for learning, tailored to one’s goals and interests. 

Personal Learning Portfolios for Professionals
Both posts generated meaningful discussion— with many comments coming from participants in the Education Technology & Media course (#ETMOOC). The topic of the course last week was ‘connected learning’, and discourse focused on PLEs and PLNs. Several themes emerged, yet one was consistent—the idea of a place within one’s Personal Learning Environment to document and record ‘open’ learning courses and content created, learning plans, Badges earned, and/or work completed; the concept of Personal Learning Portfolio was mentioned several times. In one post, How to make Learning Visible, Helen Blunden, a workplace training consultant, wrote about portfolios for professionals and shared her learning from a recent online workshop, Professional Learning Portfolios Workshop. Helen explored how the digital portfolio can be used as a record of formal and informal learning in the workplace as part of one’s PLE, and even presented the idea to one of her clients [her post is useful for those wanting to develop their own PLP].

Yet, it is the following comment made during an asynchronous discussion between myself and two other educators that sparked the idea of introducing the concept of a PLP to students:

“….my “hub” all of my digital work [this educator uses her blog as her 'hub', a platform for her portfolio]. It’s my portfolio, digital me, digital footprint etc. I felt scattered about, I no longer feel that way. Many people prefer to have a digital portfolio separate to their blog, in other places, like Mahara, I prefer autonomy of, and take responsibility for, my online life. If I had my time again as a classroom teacher, I would like to start this process from day 1.” [Comment from educator Penny Bentley on this post]

Personal Learning Portfolios: An Essential for Students
The comment above, feeling ‘scattered about’ is not uncommon. Yet, can we help students now, by showing them how to manage their digital lives and learning effectively by providing them with the [digital] literacy skills needed. This is where I see a Personal Learning Portfolio as an essential tool for students, both high school and college age individuals. As education becomes unbundled, fragmented, similar to a ‘jigsaw’ as described by author and professor, Richard DeMillo, a learning portfolio that is owned and controlled by the student, that establishes a student’s digital identify is almost obligatory. I suggest that a PLP could be used as a starting point for students to begin developing their own Personal Learning Environment, establishing a pathway and identity as a lifelong learner.

“It is now economically feasible for a student anywhere in the world to piece together, jigsaw like, a curriculum that matches his or her needs and to have both the curriculum and the student’s performance certified in a way that is accepted by academic institutions and employers alike. The focus on higher education has irrevocably shifted from institutions to students”. Richard Demillo, (2013)

We already are moving in the direction of ‘pieced together’ learning experience—with the prevalence of open and online courses, some which will be for credit, and some not. How will students record and potentially share their learning? What about media projects, or papers written? Or a learning plan and goals? This is where the portfolio comes in. The diagram below illustrates how the concepts work together. This diagram is adapted from Steve Wheeler’s blog post, Anatomy of a PLE.

Screen Shot 2013-01-29 at 5.47.36 PM

A visual representation of a Personal Learning Environment system; the personal network and portfolio are dimensions of the PLE, developed using digital tools and platforms to create a virtual space for creating, sharing, archiving, and collaborating on the Web. Adapted from Steve Wheeler’s blog post.

Definition of Personal Learning Portfolio
Following is my proposed definition and vision of a Personal Learning Portfolio for students, which is not the same as an e-portfolio or electronic portfolio that was prevalent and much discussed in higher education and K-12 sometime between 2004 and 2005. The e-portfolio of the past was used primarily for the institution’s purposes, as an assessment tool for instructors to evaluate student learning, and for assessment of program and school quality, used often for an institution’s accreditation process. The tool was institution and not student-centric. After reading An Overview of e-Portfolios, from the EDUCAUSE library, it is obvious who was driving the program and for what purpose, and it wasn’t for the student (Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005).

My ‘working definition’ of a PLP for students:

Personal Learning Portfolio is a virtual, personal space that serves as a dynamic planning tool, archive, profile, and showcase of an individual’s lifelong learning experiences, goals and achievements.  It is created by the learner, controlled by the learner, and is on a platform of his or her choice. Though the tool is geared to be an open tool that records the digital footprint of the individual, the learner controls who has access to any section of the portfolio at any given time.

2723063152_573fee60a5_z

A ‘beta’ screenshot of a student’s portfolio to display his photos and design work. By onemorechris, Flickr

Helping Students to Develop a Portfolio – How?
I suggest that the concept of the PLP be introduced to students in high school or at the college level, and be viewed as the catalyst or a gateway to students developing their own PLE and PLN. The PLP for students is the first step, with the learning environment and network evolving over time.

Components of a PLP could include: 1) personal profile—a similar experience a student would have had in creating a profile for a social networking site such as Facebook, 2) educational record of one course, where student includes his or her learning created [assignments], and reflections [blog posts] from the course. Over time other courses could be added, including badges, earned, certificates and/or degrees, thus serving as an education record or archive, 3) blog, and 4) media projects, that students may have completed as part of the course, and this might be a place to include a video introducing him or herself.

Previous Research and Models of PLP
I am not the first one to come up with this idea, scholar Wendy Drexler proposed a similar idea in her research paper, The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy (2010). Drexler introduces the Networked Student Model in her paper, which builds upon the concept of the Networked Teacher Model, developed by Alec Courus (2008). What is useful in the paper for educators to consider is the research project where Drexler documents a project with a small group of high school students that completed a project to build a Personal Learning Environment using digital tools around a topic of interest. The results are worth examining for those that are considering moving forward with a PLP for high school and/or college students.

Closing Thoughts
If education is moving towards open learning, unbundling, and a student-centric model as it appears to be, we as educators will have no choice but to support the shift and get students to take charge of their own learning, be responsible and self-directed. We can support them as lifelong learners with guidance in creating a Personal Learning Portfolio that may lead to a learning environment and network of their own. My hope is that this post may prompt further discussion or consideration among educators about personal learning environments, networks and portfolios, so at the very least, readers can be a model to students of what a lifelong learner is and does.

Example of Student Learning Portfolios

  • David A. Dupell’s ePorfolio. David is a business student, a Junior at Temple University, Fox School of Business. All students have ePortfolios in this program (created and maintained by the student, though each has to be ‘approved’ before it is visible), and each student has a blog associated with his or her portfolio. The program at the school is an interesting one. The website states: “The FOX MIS community platform enables social education – a concept that integrates learning, teaching, professional development, placement, and administration and socialization by applying open source social media and Web 2.0 concepts.
  • Evelyn Thorne’s e-portfolio (2013). This site appears to be maintained [actively] by the student herself. She outlines the goals of her courses, assignments, and updates the site on what she has accomplished.  Her ‘logbook entries’ appear to begin with a question posed as it would have been for her studies, which she then reflects on and responds to.

Instructor Driven Portfolio Projects for Students

  • Personal Learning Portfolio, (2012). MAET East Lansing (Year 1). This site appears to created and maintained by the instructor for his or her class where the assignment is for students to create a portfolio. The page does provide a good example of clearly outlined expectations for students.  This appears to be a good introduction to the concept of portfolios and creating an identify on the Web.

Resources

Photo credit: Cesar Poyatos, Flickr

Need-to-Know News of the Week: A ‘Bill’ to Protect Online Students and a MOOC2Degree Program

In this ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series I aim to share noteworthy stories with readers that speak of developments within higher education and K-12 that have potential to influence, challenge and/or transform the traditional model of education.

MP900405500This week there were two interesting developments in the education news —I’ve briefly summarized each, highlighted key need-to-know points, and included links that will take readers to sites that will provide multiple perspectives on the issues. The announcements are significant enough that at some level educators will likely encounter the topics in discussions, meetings or learning communities.

1) “A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age”
This ‘Bill’ released this week, was not put forth by an organization or institution as one might think, but by a group of twelve: educators, technologists and journalists including Sebastian Thrun, founder of Udacity. The document has garnered much attention this week in higher education newsletters and blogs, though not without considerable criticism. Granted, the intent is noble “to inspire an open, learner-centered dialogue around the rights, responsibilities, and possibilities for education in the globally-connected world of the present and beyond”,  but the result is quite irksome for numerous reasons.  I will not cover all the irritants in great detail here, though one is the title, Bill of Rights which suggests an enforceable, legally binding document, which clearly it is not. Why not use the term manifesto as higher education journalist, and one of the twelve Audrey Watters suggested?

The ‘Bill of Rights and Principles’ is a need-to-know for readers more because of the depth of coverage its received rather than for its usefulness. However, I do recommend that educators involved in online education read it, as we may be hearing more about it in the future. I say ‘may’ because it’s not quite clear how the Bill of Rights will be used, or who or which institution will use it.  It appears to be written for students, [yet not one ‘student’ was involved in its development]. Thrun initiated the development of the bill, apparently as he felt that students taking online courses (specifically MOOCs) need protection [from whom I am not quite sure], though it appears that it is the for-profit purveyors of online education that are posing the threat (interesting fact, Udacity, Thrun’s company is for-profit). This point is addressed in the ‘The right to financial transparency section‘ of the bill.

One or more individuals of the group of twelve had the idea to put the document on a Google doc for anyone to review, modify, add or delete part of the document. It is quite interesting to read the comments of the contributors. Though from what I could see when reviewing it several times there appear to be few ‘students’ engaging, it is mostly one or more of the creators and several educators. [I appreciate that the title as of 17:00 PST, January 24,  was changed to 'Rights and Principles for Online Networked Learning']

Previous Documents outlining Online Learners Rights
There have been similar documents developed that address what the group of twelve created, yet it appears neither of these individuals were consulted or involved in the development of the most recent charter. Stephen Downes, Canadian scholar and researcher [co-founder of the original MOOC] created a ‘Cyberspace Charter of Rights‘ in 1999, which speaks to many of the issues referred to in the recent document. I wonder why Dr. Downes was not included in this discussion?

As recently as last year Quality Matters published QM Bill of Rights for Online Learners, which was developed using research conducted by the Penn State World Campus that included more than thirty institutions nationwide and 3,000 students.

Further Reading:

  • A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age, Hack Education, Audrey Watters
  • Help us Edit the Learners Bill of Rights, P2PU, Phillip
  • Authors of ‘Bill of Rights’ for Online Learners Face Criticism, Wired Campus, Steve Kolowich
  • Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age, University Affairs, Leo Charbonneau
  • Bill of Rights’ Seeks to Protect Students’ Interests as Online Learning Rapidly Expands, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Steve Kolowich

iStock_graduate_social_XSmall2) MOOC2Degree provides Incentive to Students
Every week there appears to be an announcement about MOOCs, yet here is one that stands out, MOOC2Degree. The announcement by Academic Partnerships  is BIG news. From the press release:

Through this new initiative, the initial course in select online degree programs will be converted into a MOOC. Each MOOC will be the same course with the same academic content, taught by the same instructors, as currently offered degree programs at participating universities. Students who successfully complete a MOOC2Degree course earn academic credits toward a degree, based upon criteria established by participating universities.

Public universities are attempting to embrace the MOOC movement by offering a MOOC course for free, AND granting academic credit to those students that complete the course successfully (details to be determined), if students continue their studies within that school’s degree program. The program is promoted as ‘the first step towards your degree’. There are still details to be worked out, and some exceptions apply, but that is the basic concept. This is a tremendous undertaking as courses will need be developed and customized for the online environment which requires numerous resources, and a high-level of collaboration with faculty and respective departments.

What this means to educators is that because the traditional path to a degree for students is changing, the instructional design and teaching model will need to adapt and transform accordingly. Some Instructors will be affected in the short-term, those that teach general education courses for example, specifically faculty that teach at public institutions. But there will be a ripple effect throughout institutions that begin to adopt this model; administrators, support staff, curriculum decision makers, IT departments etc. will all be affected by this shift.

This development is significant, as we are starting to see how MOOCs will affect the middle-tier schools, the significant number of institutions that serve a large population of students of all ages.

Further Reading:

  • Further Evolution of MOOCs with Academic Partnerships and MOOC2Degree Launch, e-literate, Phil Hill
  • MOOCs the Perfect Storm, HUFFPOST Students United Kingdom, Helena Gillespie
  • Universities Try MOOCs in Bid to Lure Successful Students to Online Programs, Wired Campus, Steve Kolowich
  • Press Release: Academic Partnerships Launches MOOC2Degree Initiative (Massive Open Online Courses), January 23, 2013
  • Q&A with Randy Best on MOOC2Degree, Inside Higher Ed, Joshua Kim

Closing
We will no doubt be hearing more about these developments and stories over the next few weeks – stay tuned!