‘Hacking your Education’: Key Takeaways for Higher Ed

“For those who have absolutely no idea of their interests, a four-year institution is a waste of money and time.” Dale J. Stephens, “Hacking your Education: Ditch the Lectures, Save Tens of Thousands, and Learn More Than Your Peers Ever Will”

Dale J. Stephens. From the cover of his book “Hacking your Education”

This quote is from a twenty-one year old college dropout. He not only is the author of the book Hacking Your Education, but is founder of the website and movement, UnCollege. Stephens insists he is not advocating that young people don’t go to college, but is suggesting students only go to college if they know what they want to study and why. Seems reasonable enough. Yet Stephens argument and advice for hacking your education lacks credibility. Yes he is a college dropout and hacked his education, but he is also a Thiel Fellow, a recipient of a $100,000 award through a program for college dropouts. The $100,000 award allowed Stephens to explore what he wanted to do, hack is education as part of a two-year program to “skip college and focus on their work, their research, and their self-education” [thielfellowship.org]. Though after reading more on the Thiel website, it appears that entrepreneurship is the focus.  And Stephens did take the entrepreneurship route by founding UnCollege and writing his book.

The Message in Hacking Your Education
However, there is message within the book and website that is worth examining, both for higher education institutions and parents. The main message when delving further and reading between the lines, is how differently these kids think—how education [even employment] methods, norms and traditions don’t align with their values and desires. I’ll expand further in this post, but before I do, first a brief background on the Thiel award.

Thiel Fellows: Awards $100,000 to College Dropouts
The Thiel Fellowship is controversial, both with educators and employers. It is funded and founded by Peter Thiel, a wealthy venture capitalist and critic of the higher education system. He started the ‘Thiel Fellows,” program in 2011. The program awards twenty individuals under the age of twenty— $100,000. It’s a highly competitive application process. Though given the vast sum of money at stake it’s not surprising.

“Thiel Fellows are given a no-strings-attached grant of $100,000 to skip college and focus on their work, their research, and their self-education. Our network of visionary thinkers, investors, scientists, and entrepreneurs, who provide guidance and business connections that can’t be replicated in any classroom, mentors them. Rather than just studying, you’re doing.” [thielfellowhip.com]

Mr. Stephens is from the Thiel class of 2011. Ironically, Stephens business model for UnCollege is loosely based on the Thiel model. Except in Stephens model students are customers, they pay for the UnCollege experience.  UnCollege experiences come in two versions, the Gap Year Program, and a weekend conference, Hack Camp. The price is dear, $750 tuition for the three-day camp, and $13,000 for the Gap Year Program.

UnCollege.com

UnCollege: Hacking your Education
I can see how UnCollege is appealing to teenagers, especially young men that seem to be less motivated than young women to apply to and complete college as the statistics show.  It is especially appealing to those that don’t have the inclination or desire to go to college, but want to do something, but don’t know what that something is [though really,  isn’t this common to most teenagers, especially high school seniors?].

What the UnCollege website does provide for teenagers is reassurance. The site subtly states that it is normal and okay to not know what to do, and to question the notion that college education is the only alternative after high school or the only path to success. It also promotes self-directed learning, and encourages students to take charge of their lives and create their own paths. This latter part about taking responsibility for one’s own learning is excellent advice – and more so that it comes from a peer.

Stephens Message to Students
There are also some worthy points in the book for young adults. Though the advice has are more to do with lifestyle choices and finding personal interests rather than education choices. Stephens encourages readers to be productive, i.e. getting up early every morning, and to be learning everyday with a direction and a plan. Each chapter ends with a “HACK Of THE DAY’ that includes practical tips and advice. The ‘hack’ ideas are helpful, but I do wonder how many young people have the motivation and drive to follow what Stephens suggests.

Why UnCollege Misses the Mark
However, the UnCollege website itself lacks breadth. There are few viable options presented other than entrepreneurship that students could consider if unsure about college. The site does provide a few free resources and idea for students seeking guidance, but overall it is heavily slanted to entrepreneurship and little else. In fairness, it really is a platform for selling its programs, book and Stephens’ services as a speaker. It is a business, despite its .org suffix in its web address that may lead some to believe it is a not-for-profit organization.

The site would be far more valuable to students if it included a variety of resources with information on alternative paths and options to traditional higher education. Imagine how this site could truly benefit teenagers that are confused about college, unsure of what to do, but want to make a difference. With multiple options to consider, perhaps it could put kids on the right path to higher education by suggesting alternatives to the traditional path. Or the site could provide options where young people can be productive in communities while figuring out what they really want to do. I’ve listed a couple of ideas below [though there are many more out there]:

• Volunteer programs that are study abroad lasting for one year. Some examples: from the UK: VSO Program for 18 – 25 year-old individuals,  Peace Corps, or the Go Overseas Program, which has its own Gap Year Program
• Alternative Degree Programs: University Now [US], or The Open University [UK]
• Education Platforms that offer courses earning certificates with direct links to employers, i.e. Udacity
  

Closing Thoughts for Educators
What can be gleaned from the book and site is that a large group of students find the thought of studying in traditional settings unappealing. They want to do something but are unsure of what. Some have a vague idea but don’t know where to start. Students [the 20 and under crowd] don’t value traditional education the way that we do. Perhaps presenting options for students that deviate from traditional study is the answer, project-based learning for example, where students begin the program in their first year of college. We need to share and promote alternatives to traditional higher education that provide productive real-life learning experiences. Getting students involved in volunteer programs to learn new skills and experience other cultures is a worthy endeavor. I am not discounting traditional education and study by any means, there are students that will take this route, but there are thousands that don’t want to, or would benefit from life experience first. Perhaps colleges can develop an UnCollege program of its own. Does this seem far-fetched? Maybe, but it is worth thinking about.

Further Reading:

• College is a waste of time, Dale J. Stephens, (2011) CNN
• Peter Thiel, Megan Mcardle, (2011), The Atlantic
• Hacking your Education, Dale J. Stephens, Amazon

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.

‘Speaking to Students’ with Audio Feedback in Online Courses

In this post I’ll share how to give meaningful and constructive feedback to students on assignments, presentations, and other works by using voice recorded files.

Research suggests that students want specific and detailed feedback from their instructors (Balaji & Chakrabarti, 2010 ). Who wouldn’t? It is disappointing to students to receive few or no comments from their instructor after investing hours researching and writing a paper.  Even more disconcerting to some students, is receiving a below par grade with little explanation or constructive feedback—in online classes even more so given the lack of personal contact. Which is why in online classes voice feedback is much appreciated by students; most students welcome this type of response. I had one professor in grad school that provided audio feedback on our assignments, which I appreciated, and looked forward to very much even if it was not all positive. Not only did five minutes of feedback pack a lot of punch, but it felt personal, and I found myself putting extra effort into all assignments in his class. This is not to say written feedback is not valued, but voice is particularly impactful in our text-based world. Given the value to students, the time-saving  benefits to instructors, and the new tools that are easy to use, I suggest all instructors consider speaking feedback to students using recorded voice files. I’ll share how here.

Results of ‘Explanatory Feedback’ Study at Duke University
I won’t elaborate here about the value of feedback, as I delved into this topic in my last post. However before I identify feedback tools and methods I would like to share a study published recently in the Journal of Educational Psychology regarding the transfer of learning that occurs with certain types of feedback (Butler, Godbole & Marsh, 2012). The study examined the transfer of learning that occurred (or lack thereof) with three types of feedback, 1) correct answer, 2) no feedback, and 3) explanatory feedback. The learning that students absorbed was measured in three steps, recognition, recall, and application.  Results demonstrated that correct answer and explanatory feedback provided the recall level of learning among students, but explanation feedback enabled learners to better comprehend the concepts, and facilitate deeper comprehension by being able to apply the knowledge to new contexts. Next we cover how to give explanatory feedback that is rich and detailed, and goes beyond the robot grader.

The Method to Giving Audio Feedback
There may be a short learning curve to providing this type of feedback to students, but it’s very short. One might feel self-conscious at first,  but after one or two recordings, it becomes far more comfortable (Using Audio Feedback Case Study, 2010, YouTube). And the voice recording does not need to be polished or perfect—pauses are okay according to a professor at the University of New South Wales who describes the method and tool he uses in the case study video [ Learning to Teach Online series]. Though the tool he uses in the video is outdated, the method is not. In this scenario, the professor provides feedback in a voice recording after he reviews the student assignment, usually the assignment is read online or onscreen—no hard copies. The professor makes a few notes, while reviewing the student’s work, records his feedback immediately, and sends it to the student.

The Tools for Providing Audio Feedback
What better way then to provide personalized feedback than with audio. I’ve reviewed two tools below, though there are several more, the ones here are easy to use — record and send.

1) Voice Recorder App on Smart Phone. There are many apps available that are free.  I chose Voice Record Pro, form the iTunes store as it has a 4.5/5 rating. It’s easy to use. I simply open the app, hit record, then stop when I’m done, and send.

Before sending the file, I can listen to it, delete it, or save it in Dropbox, SkyDrive [other options available}.  When ready, with one click it can be sent to the student. The file is in a mp4 format which the student can download and then listen to. Easy. And the copy of the file is saved, though I suggest emailing yourself a copy in order to archive it accordingly. There are also other options available for editing and/or changing the file format.

2)  Evernote—an excellent, free app that is a favorite of mine—it does much more than provide audio feedback, but I'll focus on using it for audio feedback in this post. One of the educators I follow on Twitter, a professor, introduced me to Evernote, in a Tweet where she explained how she discovered using the app to record a feedback for students that could be sent via email. Brilliant! The prof wrote about Evernote on her blog here.

I've also included screen shots of how to record a note in three easy steps.

Three Steps to Audio Feedback with Evernote:

Step 1: After creating a new note for a student (sample student here is Nina),  click the mic icon, as highlighted here

Step Two:

Step 2: Once you click the mic button you can record, then click ‘save’. You can also pause during the recording process and resume again.

Step Three:

Step 3: This is what the message will look like after the voice recording is saved, then click on the arrow in top right hand corner.

After clicking the arrow, there are choices (see image); in this case email note is the method. Note the other options available that can be used for alternative instructional methods, i.e. sending a recorded message [reminder or announcement] to the class via Twitter by using the class #hashtag (if you have one).

Closing
Audio feedback is an excellent method to connect with students and provide feedback that is both constructive and meaningful, and can promote intellectual development and critical thinking. For those readers that are instructors, I do suggest giving this method a try.  You’ll see how easy it is, and how much students appreciate it.

If you have methods that have worked for you, or comments on audio feedback that might benefit others, please share!

Resources:

• Using Audio Feedback Case Study (YouTube Video), COFA.Online, Learning to Teach Online Series NOTE: Fast forward to the 4:00 minute mark, Results section.
• Evernote for Student Audio Feedback, joanvinallcox.com
• Strategies for Providing Feedback in Online Courses, Illinois Online Network
• Feedback Strategies for your Online Course, SHSU Online Blog
• Student Interactions in Online Discussion Forum, (2010), M S Balaji & Diganta Chakrabarti, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1),1-22

Reference
Explanation Feedback Is Better Than Correct Answer Feedback for Promoting Transfer of Learning.  Butler, Andrew C.; Godbole, Namrata; Marsh, Elizabeth J.
Journal of Educational Psychology, Dec 17 , 2012, No Pagination Specified. doi: 10.1037/a0031026

Four Good Reasons Why Students Need Instructor Feedback in Online Courses

In this post I describe why instructor feedback in an online course is essential for students that have yet to master a specific skill set and knowledge, and why MOOCs won’t cut it.

In a world of MOOC news within higher education, what is getting lost are the other modes of online learning that include closed online classes, offered for-credit at colleges and universities. These courses rely on cognitive or constructive pedagogy, with determined learning objectives and are delivered 100% online to small classes of thirty or fewer students. In this model, the instructor can support and interact with students, provide feedback, and encourage critical thinking. This type of personalized instruction can’t be provided in a massive open online course [MOOC], which leads me to suggest that the MOOC model [as it stands now] is not the right modality for most lower-level college courses required for a college degree.

What is Instructor Feedback?
I want to clarify before going further what instructor feedback means in the context of online learning classes. Instructor feedback is constructive and specific information that is provided by the instructor to the student on his or her course work [artifacts or other] and/or class contributions in relation to the course objectives and expectations. Feedback can be provided in a variety of mediums including, written, recorded voice, chat, video or other. In my next post I’ll address how to give effective feedback to students using various methods.

College Students Need Feedback
College students benefit greatly from instructor feedback, including when it’s provided in a small online learning community where interaction exists between students and instructor and students and students. In a Massive Open Online Course, [or even a F2F class of 100+ students]  it’s impossible to provide the required learning conditions for this type of interaction. It worries me that colleges and universities appear to be moving towards the MOOC model for delivering some or all courses (as in the case of SUNY or California’s public higher education institutions); courses that don’t provide for a student-to-instructor ratio that supports personalized learning. The MOOC model cannot provide the type of learning experiences needed for freshman or junior college students that is required for courses that include writing composition, communications, literature analysis, and other humanities courses. One could even argue that this is the case for some courses in math and sciences. Though I am an advocate of MOOCs, since they provide an excellent learning experience in numerous circumstances, the model which relies on the premise of massive, is not an effective one for every learner in every learning situation.

Why MOOCs Won’t Work for College Students
I am not suggesting that college students can never learn in a MOOC setting, but I do suggest that certain courses not only require a low student-to-instructor ratio, and that colleges need to provide students with the skills in how-to-learn in a networked environment where learning is pulled and not pushed. I’ll use my 18-year old daughter, a high school senior here as an example. She will be a college freshman this September, and though she is a good student, with several Advanced Placement courses under her belt, she in no way would be able to learn successfully in a MOOC in her freshman year. Not that she can’t learn, or won’t be able to at some point, but she is a product of the public school system where students are told what to do, when to do it, how to do it. Furthermore, high school students are not prompted to think outside the box, to create a networked learning environment, or to be a self-directed learner.  My daughter is an expert test taker, she says she has figured out the system, can produce what the teachers are looking for, and thus can get good grades. She is similar to many high school students. How can we expect these students to be successful in a massive course with little guidance let alone feedback?

Four Reasons why Students Need Instructor Feedback and Peer Support
Below are four reasons that support the position that college students need instructor feedback in small, closed, online classes.  I should mention that I concede that small (under forty students) face-to-face classes can accomplish all but point #3, though this point is an essential component for students working within a digital world and can only be accomplished in an online class.

1. Prompt feedback allows students to assess existing knowledge, reflect on what they have learned, what they still need to learn, and receive suggestions for improvement [Chickering and Gamson, 1997].  The principles in the classic article Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, still apply today; the tools and methods may change but the principles should not.
2. Students want feedback from instructors. Research suggests that students want feedback, and personalized feedback that includes suggestions for improvement, with explanations (Getzlaf et al, 2009).  In an online course, detailed and specific feedback on assignments or class contributions through discussion forums, live chats etc., is even more critical given the medium.
3. Students require guidance in how-to-learn in an open and online environment; instructor feedback and peer interaction in closed online courses can develop digital communication skills, including how to seek information, create personal learning environments and collaborate virtually with peers.
4. Over 60% of newly admitted college students in the US are not ready for college level work. They lack the basic writing and math skills required for the college courses they are enrolled in (SREB, 2010).  For this reason alone, college students need instructor guidance and support in completing lower level college classes, and in some cases remedial classes. Instructors can also guide students to find open resources, and provide support and encouragement to students who might be discouraged or frustrated.

Concluding Thoughts
Bottom line – the MOOC model cannot provide the level of feedback and support needed for many college students.  Instructors skilled in online teaching for small classes can provide constructive feedback to students, create a learning community that promotes interaction, and most importantly, teaches students how-to-learn in an online environment. I’ll be watching closely what happens within higher education with regards to MOOCs, and hope that administrators consider carefully a strategy that supports student development in the first and second year of college. In my next post, I’ll provide practical how-to instruction on tools and methods for giving meaningful feedback to students in an online class.

Resources:

• Effective Instructor Feedback: Perceptions of Online Graduate Students, (July, 2009), Getzlaf et al,  The Journal of Educators Online, V 6, no 2
• Collaborative Learning in Closed Online Classes vs. MOOCs, Online Learning Insights
• Meaningful Feedback in the Online Learning Environment (2012), by jalinskens67
• Student Interactions in Online Discussion Forum: Empirical Research from ‘Media Richness Theory’ Perspective, (2010), Balaji & Chakrabarti, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, v 9, issue 10
• Beyond the Rhetoric: Improving College Readiness Through Coherent State Policy, (2010), Special Report by The National Center Public Policy and Higher Education and The Southern Regional Education Board