Why MOOCs Are Hindering and Not Helping Higher Ed

The 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: Globalization of MOOCs, $500,000 Prize for Faculty & Ed Tech Tools

In this ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series I share 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 the traditional model of education.

This week MOOCs go global with the launch of OpenupEd the newest MOOC platform supported by the European Commission, and at the same time several discussions on the blogosphere about the cultural implications of American MOOCs.  Minerva, the yet-to-be launched elite online school announced a hefty prize for an ‘extraordinary professor’ akin to the Nobel Prize according to Minerva’s founder, and two slick new tools for creating online transcripts and portfolios.

The Globalization of MOOCs
The MOOC platform OpenupEd that launched this week has a different approach than its counterparts in the United States. One distinction between OpenedEd and US MOOC platforms is the course delivery method. Rather than a common platform for courses, as Coursera and edX provide for example, each institution uses its own learning management platform. OpenedEd acts like a portal, or gateway to course providers own sites.  The selection of courses is impressive [40 courses currently], and can reach a broader audience given the range of languages available, of which there are twelve represented.

With the different platforms for each course, I see some potential barriers to learning based on my brief review. I found several courses available in English that piqued my interest. Yet one, Brain, Lifestyle and Learning appears to be a version of a previously run course with recorded lectures. It ended on April 13, 2013, and has a fee of 100€ associated with it.  Another, Psychotechnology and learning processes, sounds excellent, though I couldn’t register for it , but there was an email address provided for those seeking information. Disappointing. This doesn’t seem to fit the open criteria.

Likely it will take some time for each university to work out the details, and streamline the open process. Overall, this initiative is a positive development – opening up education to thousands of individuals with courses that cater to regional differences by language and topic.

Cultural Implications of Global MOOCs
MOOCs with their global audiences highlight cultural differences – and not just language but value systems.  An article published this week The World is Not Flat (Rivard) discusses the challenges of implementing American MOOCs in other cultures. American educational values are not universal, and certain course content and methods may not be well received by some students of other cultures. Quite telling was a comment quoted in the article from Stephen Carson, spokesperson for the MIT Open Courseware Project:

“Educational materials are not universal, but they are very, very informative for other universities to see the context in which other universities are working.”

Apparently the idea for MIT’s Open Courseware was not to create content applicable to a universal audience but to share with others for adaptation purposes. Perhaps this is why many MOOCs attract participants with advanced degrees from other countries—those with an interest in examining education principles and curriculum from American universities.

• The World is Flat, by Ry Rivard, Inside Higher Ed
• Vassiliou welcomes launch of first pan-European university MOOCs, Europa Press Release
• Cultural Awareness and Differences in MOOCs, Learner Weblog
• On the Expanding Global Landscape of MOOC Platforms, Globalhighered

$500,000 Prize from the [New] Minerva Academy
“Effectively it is a Nobel Prize for teaching,” said Ben Nelson, founder and chief executive of the Minerva Project, a for-profit online school yet to open its doors [launch date is 2015]. The prize is open to faculty from any institution with a track record that “stimulates innovation in higher education” [Anderson, 2013].

The winner will be chosen by a newly created non-for-profit Minerva Academy, led by Stanford professor and Nobel winner Roger D. Kornberg.  The Academy is now accepting nominations. There are three broad areas upon which a nominee’s work is considered and evaluated—Innovation, Impact and Inspiration, as well as a list of five criteria—all seem reasonable except for point #2:

“Nominees must have a substantial number of highly cited publications that demonstrate the impact the innovation has had on teaching.” Minerva Project

In my opinion this criteria contradicts the idea of innovation in education—the requirement that faculty applicants have numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals and rankings as per the impact factor, is grounded in the traditional model of higher education, exactly what innovation in education is trying to transform.

• Yearly Prize of $500,000 is Created for Faculty, by Tamar Lewin, New York Times
• New $500,000 prize planned for teaching, by Nick Anderson, Washington Post
• The Minerva Project, The Academy
• The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor, Thomas Reuters, Science

New Ed Tech Tools

• Accredible launched this week, appears to be an online resume and record of accomplishments and education from unaccredited sources. It seems similar to Degreed.com, which I mentioned a few weeks ago, but this platform seems to be more of a resume than transcript.
• Seelio, the portfolio for network for students and doers.  Details on this new start-up covered in-depth in the TechCrunch article.

Have a great week!

News of the Week: Robo-Grading Debate, MOOCs Promoting Peer Collaboration & New Ed-Tech Tool

In this ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series I share 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 the traditional model of education.

Stanford University launched new MOOC platform NovoEd this week.

In this post I’ve included the key developments of this past week that will keep readers in-the-know on education news. Another new MOOC platform, NovoEd launched by Stanford this week offers challenging courses and takes a unique approach to team projects and peer grading, and the machine grading of essays—the debate continues and is an issue that prevents one school from joining edX. Also, I’ll introduce a new tool that bring interactivity to online learning.

1)  Machine Grading Generates Petitions, Debates and a Message
The NYT story, Essay-Grading Software Offers Professor a Break continues to generate serious and heated debates. This particular article has received almost 1,000 comments, many from students, parents and teachers vehemently opposed to machine grading. [Background for readers not familiar with machine grading: a software program is programmed to provide a grade on student essays based upon factors such as essay length, grammar, sentence length, etc. However it cannot provide comments on tone, logic, development of main idea or thesis, etc.]

Online Petitions: This week I came across a site launched by a group of educators, Professionals Against Machine Scoring Of Student Essays In High-Stakes Assessment that has collected over 3700 signatures of individuals opposing machine grading. The groups’ mission “to eliminate computer scoring of essays used in any decision that might affect a person’s life or livelihood and should be discontinued for all large-scale assessment purposes.”

College Rejects edX – machine grading a factor: The use of machine grading by edX was of serious concern to Amherst College a [top-rated] liberal arts college that had been considering joining the edX consortium. This week Amherst announced it has decided not to partner with edX, citing several reasons, and computer-grading software was one of the major concerns.

“They [edX representatives] came in and they said, ‘Here’s a machine grader that can grade just as perceptively as you, but by the way, even though it can replace your labor, it’s not going to take your job,’ ” Sitze [professor at Amherst] said. “I found that funny and I think other people may have realized at that point that there was not a good fit.”  (Inside Higher Ed, Rivard )

I admire Amherst for the in-depth process administrators and faculty appeared to follow to determine whether to join in on the MOOC parade. In the end, faculty voted to move more class material and classes online and to create ways to incorporate technology in the classroom rather than join edX, which sounds like a rational decision. Reading the background of how the school came to this decision, it does make me wonder what process other higher education institutions do [or don’t] follow when considering what to do about MOOCs. Hmmm.

• Faculty Vote Down Joining edX Pilot Program, by Alissa Rothman, The Amherst Student
• EdX Rejected, by Ry Rivard, Inside Higher Ed
• Six Ways the edX Announcement gets Machine Grading Wrong, by Elijah Mayfield, e-Literate [in-depth discussion on the comments section of this post]
• Giving Feedback to Students: Instructor vs. Machine, Online Learning Insights

2)  MOOC platform NovoEd: Good courses but potential challenges with peer grading System
Another MOOC platform launched this week NovoEd [formerly Venture Lab] and seeks to differentiate itself from other MOOC providers by promoting peer collaboration. I am both intrigued and impressed by the line-up of classes NovoEd offers. The course Mobile Health without Borders for example, will operate more like a conference than a course. Its focus is on global health challenges, and students will work in teams on small group assignments with the primary goal to “help you prepare for the Health Innovation Challenge, an opportunity to work with a global multi-disciplinary team and world-class mentors to design a solution to a health challenge you care about.”

There are eight courses in total, including Hippocrates Challenge, Technology Entrepreneurship and more. It really is a tremendous opportunity for interested individuals to participate in such courses with faculty from an excellent school such as Stanford.

‘Designing a New Learning Environment’ course offered through NovoEd

Though the primary challenge I see with the platform is the team work assignments and the respective peer grading process. Here are some of the issues—how effective and inclusive can groups be when working in large teams assembled by algorithms? This platform apparently has software which separates learners into groups based on certain criteria. These are not self-selecting groups, which usually is how it goes in other MOOCs.

Differing Views of Groups vs Individuals
Another factor is the potential impact that cultural differences will have on teamwork. Though diversity in groups is a positive in terms of the multiple perspectives put forth—the problem I anticipate is NovoEd’s sophisticated peer grading program, where group members grade one another on each individual’s participation and contribution to team assignments.  Venture Lab [before becoming NovoEd] named and described this process as a “Reputation System’ for rating peers (evaluations, forum posts, team contribution)” [Stanford Venture Lab].

I believe this process of grading individual team members undermines the purpose and value of teamwork. Rather than working together to sort out differences during the process of working on an assignment, the system supports addressing the issue not in real-time, but after the fact through [anonymous] grading.

Furthermore, the idea of assigning grades to an individual’s work on a group project is a reflection of the North American value system, which values individual contributions over team. Other countries view teamwork as a collective effort, and the idea of grading individuals within the team is quite extraordinary. Professor Geert Hofstede created a well-known framework centered on four dimensions [individualism versus collectivism is one dimension] for analyzing how countries values affect workplace interactions and productivity.  I see these dimensions playing a role in the projects put forth by NovoEd. You can find out more from this website and even compare different countries rankings of its values.

Several of my peers on Google+ completed one of the first courses on Venture Lab, and have positive feedback about it, as well as some constructive. Overall it appears NovoEd has a tremendous and worthy platform and selection of courses. I look forward to reading about the results.

• New MOOC Platform says it Fosters Peer Interaction, by Jake New, Wired Campus
• MOOC Platform to Focus on Peer Learning, by Emma Boyde, Business School News
• The Hofstede Center, National Culture, Countries]
• NovoEd

New Ed-Tech Tool to Support Interaction in Online Courses

Smartsparrow.com

This platform looks like its worthy of investigating further – as it provides easy way to build interactive content into online courses: “Smart Sparrow is an Australian ed-tech start-up pioneering adaptive and personalized learning technology. It was founded by Dr Dror Ben Naim who led a research group in the field of Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Educational Data Mining at the University of New South Wales in Sydney resulting in the development of the Adaptive e-Learning Platform”.

Have a great week!

Teaching Tips From a Master MOOC-Maker

Teach a MOOC … what are you, crazy? … However, what I learned was that teaching a MOOC has been the purest and most fun form of teaching and learning that I’ve ever done. Maria H. Andersen, Ph.D. (Canvas Network, Sloan Consortium Streamed Session, April 9, 2013)

I attended the Sloan Symposium last week as a virtual attendee and participated in several  sessions including Designing a MOOC for Canvas. The above quote comes from the sessions’ leader, Maria Andersen who currently works at Canvas and teaches her own MOOC on Social media through the Canvas Network. The session was insightful, and several readers may find the tips shared helpful, which is the purpose of this post. Strategies shared in the session are applicable to online course design in general and are not exclusive to Canvas.

I’ll include the highlights of the session—an insiders look at MOOCs based on Andersen’s experience supporting thirty MOOCs in her role with Canvas as Director of Learning, and the methods she shared for creating activities that drive learning and sustain student interest. I have no doubt that many readers will find what Anderson has to say instructive and helpful, even more so for to those considering developing a MOOC, and/or planning to teach one in the future.

Andersen has extensive teaching experience, both in face-to-face and online venues, though she much prefers teaching MOOC students, describing them as eager to learn, motivated, and willing to dig deep into content areas of interest for the sake of personal development. In contrast, Andersen describes teaching students of for-credit courses as painful and tedious (Andersen, Designing a MOOC for Canvas). Though I have differing views of traditional students than Andersen, I liked what she had to say about the roles of teachers and learners, and the design methods for online courses.

Design Strategies and Insiders Tips for Teaching a MOOC

Role of the Instructor: Andersen shared sage advice for MOOC instructors. First, that the role of the instructor is profoundly different in a MOOC in comparison to traditional for-credit course. The instructor’s role is one of curator and creator – creator of a learning environment that encourages contributing and sharing. Instructors also need to accept that fact that he or she may not be the only expert in the class. One or more enrolled participants may hold advanced degrees or be an expert in the course subject – her advice, embrace them, use them to guide other learners, perhaps as a teaching assistant or discussion moderator. A UC Irvine professor teaching with Coursera did not follow this advice. He attempted to silence the experts in course, instructing them not to participate in discussion forums. The professor ended up quitting half way through the course. 

Andersen suggests leveraging international perspectives

Other advice included leveraging the international perspectives of students in the class to provide learning depth and diversity. Anderson shared examples from her course where students contributed resources from Asia that gave cultural insight and diverse perspectives on course topics. She encourages her students to contribute and share in the course through blog posts and comments, which she encourages by frequently mentioning or showcasing student work or comments in class messages created for students. Including relevant resources on the course home page that students find and crediting the student is another effective method. In the MOOC e-Learning and Digital Cultures, the professors discussed and read clips of students blog posts during the live bi-weekly Google+ hangout sessions. As a student I found this effective, I felt instructors were involved and present in the course.

Profile of Learners: Anderson shared that the majority of learners in Canvas Network have college degrees, many holding advanced ones—nothing we don’t already know, but the rest of information was original, for instance that most learners attention span, the time students devote to the course is between two to six hours per week, the average falling around four. The ideal length of a massive course appears to be four weeks, anything longer than that becomes a challenge for students to sustain. Though it is possible, but requires specific strategies to keep the course going and learner engaged, for example a featured guest discussing a topic on Google hangout, or engaging in a discussion within a discussion forum.

In the learning community there is much discussion about the rigor of xMOOCs or lack there-of considering the length and time invested by students.  Andersens’ view—less hours invested per week does not mean less rigor but more. With a well-designed course, one that encourages learners to learn actively and create content, she finds learners are intensely focused and engaged.

Tips on Course Design

Excellent advice on course design from Andersen in this section—the principles here also apply to  small, for-credit online classes. Where does one start with MOOC course design if adapting content from a face-to-face class? Create a new syllabus. Do NOT use the same syllabus as used in a face-to-face course. Developing new materials and methods is key to a successful MOOC, or at least adapting content and methods that will be applicable to the different learner and learning contexts.

Include a ‘start here’ page that guides students through the early stages of the course

Below I’ve included key points on course development that Andersen presented as it applies to MOOCs, which is also applicable to small, online for-credit courses.

• Include a ‘start here’ page on the course site for students to go to when starting the course—similar to an orientation. Students in the first week of an online class are overwhelmed, and don’t know what to do first. An orientation page helps tremendously. Including a welcome video from the course instructor is much appreciated by students.
• Learning activities and assessments should drive learning with action, students should have to do something.
• Activities should get students to apply the content and share. An example from Andersen’s social media course— one activity was for students to get 50 new Twitter followers over a two-week time period. Then they had to describe in writing how they went about doing so either in a class forum or blog post.
• Assessments should provide another opportunity to learn—not to assess whether they have learned. Assessments should benefit the students not the instructor.
• Assessments [ideally] should drive students to find information and provide opportunity for further learning. Allow students to take assessments as many times as needed to achieve a goal score. An example from Andersen’s class—she developed a quiz that asked specific and detailed questions about a social media platforms user policy [Facebook]. She designed the quiz so that students would not be able to pass the test unless they read the policy in-depth, or even had to research the answers on Google. Either way they would learn something in the process.

Onwards to a MOOC

The advice Andersen provided about MOOCs was helpful. I hope that readers interested in teaching MOOCs found something of value, yet I don’t want to overlook the fact that the role of MOOCs is still unclear, the future of xMOOCs is fuzzy. For that reason, considering the other dimensions that surround MOOCs is recommended, and using what is here as a guide. In an ideal world, [sigh] MOOCs should be developed and taught with a clear purpose that includes expanding and sharing learning with others beyond the walls of the institution.

Giving Feedback to Students: Instructor vs. Machine

“edX, a nonprofit enterprise founded by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will release automated software that uses artificial intelligence to grade student essays and short written answers.”  John Markoff, New York Times

There has been much discussion this week among educators about the idea of robo-grading, or machine grading, prompted by the New York Times article Essay Grading Software Gives Professors a Break of which the quote above is an excerpt. To date over 1,000 comments posted to the article, most vehemently opposing the idea of automated grading. Quite by coincidence, I posted an article on this blog, Four Reasons Why we Need Instructor Feedback in Online Courses that emphasizes the value of instructor feedback specifically in online courses—and I stressed why MOOCs won’t cut it. 

My argument is that undergraduate students need constructive and specific feedback to develop their writing and critical thinking skills, and a massive course such as a MOOC cannot provide it. My view contrasts starkly with the president of edX, Dr. Agarwal.  Agarwal is convinced that students can learn from, and develop writing skills in a MOOC setting with feedback via automated grading.  It’s the immediate feedback that is useful states Agarwal, and that students are able to “take tests and write essays over and over and improve the quality of their answers” (Markoff, 2013). Hmmm—while I do agree that immediate feedback supports the conditions required for learning, I don’t see students being motivated to rewrite an essay again and again.

How Does Automated Grading Affect Student Motivation?

In response to the NYT article, Elijah Mayfield, founder of LightSIDE Labs, developed a computer program that uses “machine learning to automatically assess written text“.  Mayfield wrote a post for e-Literate discounting the claims outlined in the NYT article which generated over 50 comments, mostly from university professors opposing the robo-grader concept. I have minimal experience with machine grading, and my comments to Mayfield’s post took a different (perhaps less informed) approach, focusing more on the conditions of learning. The concerns I have focus on students perception and their willingness to consider automated grading as valuable. Also its effect on student motivation, thus potential learning. Two of my recent posts, here and here, reference research studies that support explanatory and constructive feedback from instructors.

Below is the comment I posted in response to Mayfield’s post Six Way the edX Announcement Gets Automated Essay Grading Wrong on e-Literate.

Thank you Elijah for this in depth post. Questions I have-how do students perceive machine grading? And how much research has been done on the impact on learning performance and motivation?

I wonder what the implications are (or will be) on students’ motivation, and quality of their effort and work? Students spend time on writing essays, some more than others, yet for students to know that a real person will not be reading their essay, could impact many processes. My teenagers have been exposed to automated grading periodically at their high school and they both strongly dislike it (despise it is a more fitting term). They discount its value completely. I predict that teenagers and young college students will not be receptive to this type of grading. Why should they spend hours researching, writing and re-writing an essay when they know no one ( a real person) will even read it? Even more so in a MOOC that is not for credit, why on earth would you write an essay for an automated grader?

For large-scale classes, as you discuss in your post, peer grading would be a far more valuable exercise and learning experience for students than machine grading. Two studies I have read show that there is 20 to 25% grade inflation with peer grading, but the learning for sides, peer and student is far more meaningful in my opinion.

I am all for technological advancements, yet at some point are we not going too far, and when will that be? (A rhetorical question). However, I do look forward to reading further and learning more about this method. Thank you for the thought-provoking post. Debbie

Response from Elijah Mayfield:

Debbie – There are mixed results in the literature, but most of all they point to a negative impression from students if they’re working purely alone, even if writing skill does go up. However, if automated technology is being used in a collaborative setting, scaffolding the interaction, we see almost the opposite effect – compared to a control it increases student satisfaction with the learning experience, and their own self-efficacy, even if the learning gains on top of that collaborative process are modest…

Mayfield’s response is fair and honest, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in discussion with readers that commented and expressed skepticism, if not criticism of his program. I encourage readers that are interested in learning more about the topic to read the post and the discussion that follows it.

Let’s Think about This More…

I want to learn more about the idea of machine grading, and am eager to review feedback from students after edX implements its grading software that Agarwal speaks of in the NYT article. Though I remain skeptical—I’m keeping my mind open. As mentioned, I am most concerned about its implications on student motivation, and the potential long-term effects on learning should machine grading become the norm. There is an emotional side to this story, the idea of students making personal connections and feel that their writing is of value when writing to a real person. Can the joy of writing be fostered when writing for a machine?

Further Reading:

• Six Way the edX Announcement Gets Automated Essay Grading Wrong, Elijah Mayfield, (2013), e-Literate
• Robots Eyes as Good as Humans when Grading Essays, Melissa Block, (2012), NPR
• Tossing Sabots into the Automated Essay Grading Machine, (2012), Audrey Watters
• Four Reasons Why Students Need Instructor Feedback in Online Courses, Online Learning Insights
• Better Tests, More Writing, Deeper Learning, (2012), GettingSmarter.com
• Essay-Grading Software Offers Professors a Break,(2013), John Markoff, New York Times

Image credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com’s photostream (Flickr)

Need-to-Know News: Minerva’s Model, MOOC Students Reveal Why they Quit and More

In this ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series I share 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 the traditional model of education.

Not to disappoint, last week the education sector provided numerous stories worthy of review—I’ll highlight the key themes for readers in this post. One development worth watching is Minerva, a want-to-be Ivy League Online School that is moving forward with a new model for learning. And with MOOCs, never a dull week—I’ll share the top stories here. For those looking for professional development opportunities, I’ve include two upcoming [online] events to consider attending.

Minerva University
I first read about Minerva in 2011 and was intrigued. At the time it sounded viable and interesting—a university that planned to offer rigorous course work through online course work and experiential learning in International locations with small cohorts of students. Yet that was before the MOOC movement, and now looking closer it appears to be an expensive and perhaps even elitist education for select students that must meet stringent, if not unreasonable entrance criteria.

I don’t want to discredit the program completely as it does offer a novel approach to higher education, which is what we need more of – innovative ideas for educating students. As we speak, the school is assembling an impressive team, evidenced by the recent hire, Stephen Kosslyn from Stanford, appointed as Minerva’s Founding Academic Dean. Apparently, Kosslyn’s also in recruiting mode (Rivard, 2013).  Yet there are a few red flags.  One is the selection criteria for students, which according to Minerva’s founder Ben Nelson [former executive of Snapfish], will be gifted students that will need to pass, “psychometric tests to try to find students who are self-confident leaders, and intellectually and emotionally mature”.  This strikes me as odd—how many 18 year-old teenagers do you know that are intellectually mature? Another concern, students will be traveling globally during their studies, which makes me think that some parents might be concerned about their teenager’s health, safety and well-being as they globe trot around the world, and some kids might not be able to adapt.

We’ll see what happens, this for profit venture has already raised $25 million, but apparently needs millions more.  I am a tad skeptical of the viability of Minerva, but what it does do is challenge the model of higher education, which David Brooks from the New York Times suggests is a good thing, The best part of the rise of online education is that it forces us to ask: What is a university for? (2013).

• The Practical University (2013), New York Times, David Brooks
•  The Miverva Moment, (2013), Inside Higher Ed, Ry Rivard
• The Minerva Project

MOOC News

1) US MOOC platforms openness questioned.  A professor at UK’s Open University states that platforms edX and Coursera do not meet the criteria of openness as students need to register first with the platform, then enroll in courses they want to take. A valid point. Though free, Coursera and edX cannot be viewed without creating an account which is counter intuitive to the concept of open.

2) Essay Grading Software Gives Professors a Break. edX, the MOOC platform of Harvard and MIT plans to introduce essay grading software for several courses. It’s the robo-grader that will grade students written work. Automated grading perhaps has its place, but I’m not sure if MOOCs are the place given the trajectory that MOOCs are on within higher education.

3) Top ten reasons why MOOC students drop. Though an unscientific one, Open Culture conducted a survey among MOOC students, and even with 50 responses, the feedback is most insightful.

Top Ten Reasons Students Didn’t Finish MOOC:

1. Takes too Much Time
2. Assumes Too Much Knowledge
3. Too Basic
4. Lecture Fatigue
5. Poor Course Design
6. Clunky Community/Communication Tools
7. Bad Peer Review & Trolls
8. Surprised by Hidden Costs
9. Shopping Around
10. Want to Learn,  Nor for Credential

Professional Development

• Sloan Consortium’s 6th Annual International Symposium for Emerging Technologies and Online Learning begins April 9th [and goes through to the 11th]. For those that can’t attend live in Las Vegas, virtual attendance is an excellent and reasonably priced option. I’m registered, and look forward to some great seminars that will be streamed live.  More on Twitter @ #et4online.
• Free Webinar on April 17, from eSchool News, Empowering Learners with Video. This one hour webinar is geared to  K12 educators.

This week should bring more exciting news. Stay tuned. I’ll be posting to my Twitter stream during the Sloan Symposium this week as well. Have a great week.

Groups, Clay Shirky and Online Education

This post explores the significance of student groups in online learning courses—the value and influence on institutions in light of the principles outlined in Shirky’s book “Here Comes Everybody”.

Image: penguingroup.com

I just finished reading Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody, The Power of Organizing Without the Organization. You may wonder how valuable such a read would be given the book was written in 2008, yet reading the book with five years of Internet advancements under our belt, was strangely thought-provoking.  More so when considering the influence and power that groups can, and have wielded in the realm of online education, specifically in courses attracting massive numbers. Here I’ll share the potential that groups hold for learning within online courses, the three principles needed for successful groups, and how student groups are subtly influencing the paradigm shift in education.

Clay Shirky: Author
Shirky is a professor, journalist, author; he studies and writes about the effects of the Internet on society from a cultural and economic viewpoint. Several recent articles written by Shirky have caused some educators to bristle. In a blog post from 2012, Napster, Udacity, and the Academy Shirky compares higher education to the music industry, suggesting that the MOOC model, or some version of it, will replace higher education as we know it. Yet my focus here is not on Shirkys’ views on education, but his insights on group formation which is particularly relevant in light of learning online in massive courses.

Three Principles of Effective Groups
Shirky discusses how society is transforming, with citizens newfound ability to form en masse with the advent of the Internet and the low barriers to group formation. Now, in 2013 there are even fewer barriers to group formation than at the time of Clay’s writing. Now groups can come together with a choice of platforms. Though all groups develop for different reasons, there are elements common to effective groups which Shirky outlines in his book (p 261):

1. The Promise is what brings the group together, around a topic of interest with a basic desire to participate. Implied in the promise is that each member will participate and contribute.
2. The Tool is the platform that will help people approach the problem/topic together. Usually a leader [organizer] emerges within a group, or soon-to-be group and chooses the platform for group communication and collaboration i.e. Facebook, Google + Community, etc. He or she will invite members, and/or approve members joining, etc.
3. The Bargain is the guidelines or rules for participating. Group norms are established, i.e. what is acceptable for communication and not, contributions, etc. The organizer essentially established the tone, which influences the culture of the group. I have seen examples of this in virtually every large online group I have participated in; the organizer dictates through actions and tone, which influences the effectiveness of group collaboration and even participation.

Groups that Collaborate
To collaborate effectively groups need the three components as mentioned. Shirky uses Wikipedia as an example of a large group that demonstrates the three principles. With its tightly knit core group and a commitment to a promise, to create a database of free content maintained by a massive community of contributors, Wikipedia has control built-in by its group norms [the bargain]. An example of the bargain in action, is when one or more of the community of contributors overrides an article written by someone that tries to sabotage its integrity. Enough members care about Wikipedia, which is why it continues to thrive (p 140).

Groups, Learning and MOOCs
Here is where things get interesting. In small, online closed courses, group collaboration is under the control of the instructor—groups actions are structured, guided, even graded as part of a student’s final grade. Group work in this instance can be effective, as instructors can teach students how to participate and collaborate effectively.

But in MOOCs learning through group interactions is not within the instructors control, yet there is even greater potential for rich learning to happen with its large, diverse body of learners. Though MOOC organizers can guide participants and be catalysts for group formation by suggesting participants share, connect and collaborate outside of the MOOC platform. [It's also helpful that instructors suggest tools to facilitate group work. Though this may seem obvious, the instructor cannot assume that everyone is familiar social tools as a vehicle for learning]. Still, learning within a group in this context is dependent upon the self-direction and motivation of its members.

The Power and Influence of Groups on the Institution
Yet for institutions that offer massive courses, there is a risk. When working with massive numbers of students, not only is group collaboration and learning not guaranteed, there is potential for groups to influence actions and decisions of instructors and institutions in ways that may not be expected, or even desired. Groups have the potential to sabotage the learning of others and the course over which the instructor has little control. Already we have seen the influence of groups within Coursera courses. For example with the Microeconomics course where groups of students were challenging the professor which prompted the professor to quit the course before it was over. Or the Fantasy-SciFi that was sabotaged by a group of students participating in the discussion forums that were working under anonymous profiles causing numerous to be vocal about their negative experience. And the Foundations of Online Education with the thousands of student complaints about the  structure and technology glitches, forced it to shut down.

Conclusion
We are just beginning to see the power of groups in online learning courses with massive numbers of students. There is great potential yet to be realized, for the development of new knowledge and problem solving with the collaborative efforts of students worldwide. The power of groups cannot by ignored, the influence they have is great, and the institutions that embrace it and acknowledge that they are no longer in control, will be better prepared to create conditions to harness its potential.

Resources

• A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy, (2003), Clay Shirky
• Clay Shirky: Institutions vs. collaboration, (2005), Ted Talk
• Here Comes Everybody, Summary from Wikipedia