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

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

change-architect-sign1

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

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

Screen Shot 2014-05-30 at 3.01.03 PM

Screenshot of slide 9 displaying chart of Global Mobile Usage

I. Mobile Computing is BIG:

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

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

II. Cybersecurity in the Spotlight:

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

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

III. Tablet and Smartphone growth.

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

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

2. Three Trends in Non-Traditional Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvardx Studio Filming for MOOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chart showing student viewing time in minutes.

Guiding Questions and Considerations for Creating a Video Strategy

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

References:

Further Reading:

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

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

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

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

 Overview

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

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

Screen Shot 2014-05-19 at 9.50.39 PM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 8.25.43 AM

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

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

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

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

Example of Human Resources Requirements: Case Study 11

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

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

2 x Faculty Members: (Subject Matter Experts)

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2014-05-20 at 8.59.34 AM

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

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

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

Closing Thoughts

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

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

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

References:

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

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

Three Bold and Fresh Ideas for Education in ‘Teaching as a Subversive Activity’

“The function of the What’s-Worth-Knowing Questions Curriculum is to put two ideas into clear focus. The first is that the art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge…The second idea is that question asking…has to deal with problems that are perceived as useful and realistic to the learner.” Teaching As a Subversive Activity (p 81)

51gmf-kQbtL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

by Neil Postman & Charles Weingartner, first published in 1969

“Teaching as a Subversive Activity” puts forth ideas about education that are radical, controversial, bold and fresh. It suggests eliminating syllabi, formal curriculum and textbooks from education settings. It introduces ideas of student-centered learning over teacher-centered teaching, and leading students to learn by asking questions, not by teachers giving lectures. The book was first published in 1969—considered radical among educators then, and today.

Hands down it’s on of the most challenging, thoughtful, practical books I’ve read about transforming education. I read it on the heels of “A New Culture of Learning” the book by John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas published in 2009 (my review here). The books complement each other well; Brown and Thomas write about learning in a digital age though don’t provide specific strategies. Postman and Weingartner do. The principles in “Teaching as a Subversive Activity” are applicable and relevant today just as they were forty-five years ago—how to change education where students learn how to think, to detect ‘crap’, and to learn how-to-learn that continues beyond high school and higher education.

In this post I highlight and share with readers three themes from the book, still relevant in today’s digital culture: 1) facilitating ‘crap detection’, 2) What’s-Worth-Knowing? and 3) bold proposals. There are more than these three within the book’s 218 pages, and I plan to address at least two in future posts. One readers may find interesting is the authors’ perspective on teacher education—the methods associated with teaching content. Postman and Weingartner suggest that content and method, are considered separate processes in teacher education programs, which is according to them, the wrong approach. This idea is compelling. Look for this post in the weeks to come.

Overview
To provide some context for the book, I found it helpful to dig more into the background of Neil Postman, one of the co-authors. He’s an American educator, author, critic of media and culture. Postman is known mostly because of his book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (1985), a book about the corrosive effects of television on culture and politics. He’s written several books on education, technology and children’s development.

Postman’s style of writing is blunt. The subtitle of “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”, ‘A no-holds barred assault on outdated teaching methods—with dramatic and practical proposals on how education can be made relevant to today’s world‘ gives the reader a glimpse into not only the content, but the authors’ tone. I adapted to the writing style; I tried to view the remarks about education not as criticisms but as a perspective. Though some readers of the book have dismissed the ideas because of the harsh criticisms of education practices, sometimes teachers (one can read the book reviewers comments on Amazon to get an idea). Saturday Review Magazine captures the implications of the authors’ tone and the books content in its review of the book featured on the back cover:

 “It will take courage to read this book…but those who are asking honest questions—what’s wrong with the worlds in which we live, how do we build communication bridges across the Generation Gap, what do they want from us? These people will squirm in the discovery that the answers are really within themselves”

The Three Themes

1) Cultivate learners to be experts at “Crap Detecting”
Crap detecting may sound harsh. Though what the authors suggest is that “schools serve as the principal medium for developing in youth attitudes and skills of social, political and cultural criticism“, where schools cultivate students that are discerning, can view problems from multiple perspectives, identify what’s valid and not, and most importantly why it is so.

Is this not an essential skill for all youth in a digital age, determining what information is ‘crap’—information that is not valid or worthy of examination, yet determine what is relevant, deserves consideration, sharing and building upon (remixing)? I’d say so. The authors use a quote from an interview with Ernest Hemingway to emphasize their point:

Isn’t there any one essential ingredient that you can identify [to be a great writer]?” Hemingway replied, “Yes, there is. In order to be a great writer a person must have a built-in, shockproof crap detector.”

It seems to us that in his response, Hemingway identified an essential survival strategy and the essential function of the school’s in today’s world.  page 3

I can’t add much more to that—relevant in 1969, and in 2014.

2) The Inquiry Method — What’s Worth Knowing?
In “A New Culture of Learning”, the concept of inquiry based learning is the fulcrum of learning in the digital age. The premise is that only when students are interested in following a path of inquiry, based on something they are passionate about, will they be motivated to learn. It’s up to educators then to harness the passion and leverage the abundance of resources to guide their learning.

This idea of inquiry learning is not new. In fact Postman may have been one of the first educators to fully develop and implement the method in a public school setting. Postman started, along with another educator, a model school dedicated to the inquiry method. The program named the “Program for Inquiry, Involvement, and Independent Study” was located within the New Rochelle High School in New York. The “open school” experiment survived for 15 years. 

Two chapters discuss the inquiry method and go in great detail; chapter three, and an extension the questioning technique in ‘Whats-Worth-Knowing?‘ described in chapter five. The latter chapter stimulates much thought. Authors challenge the reader to imagine a classroom without syllabi, textbooks, and curricula. Then suggests:

 “…suppose that you decide the entire curriculum consists of questions. There questions would have to be worth seeking answers to not only from your point of view but, more importantly , from the point of view of the students.”

The next challenge—on a blank page that exists within the book (it really does in the hard copy), authors instruct readers to take a pencil and list questions that might be starting questions to use with students. Though authors warn, these are starting questions given that:

“…the ecology of the inquiry environment requires that the students play a central, but not necessarily exclusive role in framing questions that they deem important”

It’s a provocative exercise. I came up with six questions, though after reading the rest of the chapter, I cut it down to four.

3) Bold Proposals
I won’t cover all of the strategies, proposals and ideas presented by the authors for education transformation, given the detail of each, and for the sake of your time. There are many.  But here is where the practicality comes in where “A New Culture of Learning” left off. As I said in my previous post, “A New Culture of Learning” didn’t provide practical solutions, or ideas for application for the new ways to learn. This book does. Some seem preposterous, some not. But perhaps it is time for preposterous ideas, though one’s perspective will determine just how preposterous the ideas are. In future posts I’ll discuss ideas put forth in the book for educating teachers and about pedagogy. In another I will share a summary of the authors’ ideas for inner city schools, classroom learning and teacher roles.

Conclusion
“Teaching as a Subversive Activity” is on the top of my list of best books for educators. If read in conjunction with “A New Culture of Learning”, one can gain an in-depth view of what education transformation really is, or what it could be, and what’s needed—which is dialogue and action that is bold and fresh.

Further Reading:

A Not-so-New Recipe for “A New Culture of Learning”

book3dA New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change“, by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown has stellar reviews from numerous reviewers including high-profile academics such as Cathy Davidson of Duke (CUNY in the near future), Howard Gardner of Harvard, and Henry Jenkins of USC. Though the content might be considered provocative by educators, few of the themes are startlingly new or groundbreaking. Though there is great potential in this book—as a catalyst for conversation about change in an education culture for instance, or as a window into learning in a digital age. Granted, given it’s publication date many ideas were new in 2011, including the concept of collective learning which describes MOOCs to a tee (pg. 72). Noted, the book was published one year prior the New York Time’s declaration of 2012 as The Year of the MOOC.

Brown and Thomas are well-regarded academics and authors—John Seely Brown is co-chairman for the Deloitte Center for the Edge, a visiting scholar at USC, and former director of Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center. Douglas Thomas, is an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, and is considered an expert on the culture of computer gaming.

This is not a how-to book. There are few practical examples describing how education institutions can create a new culture of learning; yet the book is an excellent primer on how and why education and learn is changing. For this reason the book holds great potential as a catalyst for conversation within education institutions. If decision-makers and stakeholders read the book it could serve as a starting point for discussions about existing education methods and approaches. It could stimulate discussion on change and its impact on students, the institution, employees and faculty. The volume lends itself to such use, as the physical book is slim at 118 pages, with wide margins that encourage the writing of notes and ideas. No question, it’s concise. Apparently this was intentional. The authors hired an editor to strip the book down to its essential points and ideas.

What is a New Culture of Learning?
Authors Seely and Brown define throughout the book what a new culture of learning entails:

So what frameworks do we need to make sense of learning in our world of constant change? The new culture of learning actually comprises two elements. The first is massive information network that provides almost unlimited access and resources to learn about anything. The second is bounded and structured environment that allows unlimited agency to build and experiment with things within those boundaries” (p 19).

The authors describe and elaborate on the themes quite well by using real scenarios; in the instance of information abundance, they provide interesting stories that emphasize the new ways of learning where learners access and vet information within a massive network. Yet there is a disconnect. The stories describe highly motivated learners, learners that seek information and learn on their own terms not within a structured or formal environment (except for one story of a group of University students set up their own study group on Facebook).  Intrinsic motivation is also a pattern observed in xMOOCs participants in 2014, where the majority of learners hold, at the very minimum, an undergraduate degree. These xMOOC students are self-motivated learners, and already know how-to-learn. If one of the ingredients to a new culture of learning is intrinsic motivation, how then can educators develop this intrinsic motivation within their students, and at the same time leverage the massive network (the Internet) for learning?

Learning as Inquiry
The authors do suggest a solution—students learn through inquiry, rather than by instruction. This approach, the authors state, will help learners find a passion for a topic, encouraging them to seek out tough problems and work harder to solve them.

“We propose reversing the order of things. What if, for example, questions were more important than answers? What if the key to learning were not the application of techniques but their intention? What if students were asking questions about things that really mattered to them? (pg 81).

The idea of problem based learning is similar to this approach of learning via inquiry. Start with a question. An example outlined in the book describes a physics teacher using an inquiry approach to teach a physics concept with a student that loves basketball. The teacher might write out a questions such as “What is the best way to shoot a basketball?” (p 82). Yet Brown and Seely don’t get to the details of how this approach translates to the classroom. What happens when all students aren’t interested in basketball or any sport for that matter? How does inquiry based learning look in context of existing curriculum?

Though the idea of learning through inquiry that Seely and Brown present is sound in principle, and there are examples of educators using the inquiry method with students, some at the K-12 level, though fewer at the post-secondary level. Many have suggested this inside out approach to education, which starts with a question not the answer. With inquiry based learning [also known as problem based learning] teachers are learning along with students, students are engaged, and are doing.

“It is crucial to recognize that inquiry-based teaching should not be viewed as a technique or instructional practice or method used to teach a subject. Rather, inquiry starts with teachers as engaged learners and researchers with the foundational belief that the topics they teach are rich, living and generous places for wonder and exploration…Inquiry is not merely ‘having students do projects’ but rather strives to nurture deep, discipline-based way of thinking and doing with students.teachinginquiry.com

Closing Thoughts
“A New Culture of Learning” is about learning in the 21st century, it’s about information abundance, and learning in the collective. It’s also a book about change, a changing culture that influences learning. Perhaps nothing new, nothing we haven’t read or heard before, but the message will be new to some, educators or professionals that haven’t considered how digital culture, the connected network we’ve created influences students, their learning. If you are looking for a conversation starter for educators you interact with, looking to implement and champion change in an education institution, this book is for you.

Further Reading

MOOC Design Tips: Maximizing the Value of Video Lectures

“Which kinds of videos lead to the best student learning outcomes in a MOOC?”
How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos (Guo, Kim & Rubin, 2014)

Reel of FilmAn excellent question that design teams and instructors of MOOCs want to know—which kinds of videos lead to the best student learning outcomes in a MOOC?  According to a recent study conducted by researchers for the edX MOOC platform, this was the most pressing question posed by the course design teams working with its partner institutions. Given that most MOOCs offered through higher education institutions platforms such as edX, iVersity, or Coursera use video lectures as the primary content delivery source, it is a critical question that preoccupies many if not most MOOC instructional design teams. Adding to this need-to-know element is the fact that video production is most often the highest cost associated with MOOC production. MOOC video production can range from a few hundred dollars and run up to the thousands. This post suggests how institution can use resources effectively in the video production process with the primary goal of supporting students’ learning outcomes.

The report released by edX last week gives design teams some concrete data to examine. I’ve emphasized below the recommendations and practical application points from the paper for readers who might be part of a design team for MOOC, online course, or for those with an interest in video production for instructional videos.  There are limitations to the study outlined in the paper, though the depth of the analysis does provide data worthy of consideration. 

The report, the first of its kind according to the authors Guo, Kim & Rubin, analyzes students’ engagement* with lecture videos gathered from data extracted from over 6.9 million video watching sessions across four edX courses.  *Student engagement is defined in the study by:

  1. Engagement time: the length of time that a student spends of a video. This is the same metric used by YouTube. Though researchers acknowledged the limitation of engagement assessed from this one-dimensional perspective.
  2. Question/Problem Attempt:  Almost one-third of the videos across the four courses featured an assessment problem directly following the video, usually a multiple-choice question designed to check a student’s understanding of the video’s contents. “We record whether a student attempted the follow-up problem within 30 minutes after watching a video.”

Videos Types for MOOCs
Lectures are divided into two primary types for the study, [which mirrors most MOOCs]: 1) lecture videos for content delivery—presented via an instructor/professor (‘talking head’ is the term used in the paper), and 2) a tutorial/demonstration, a step-by-step problem solving walk-through, common in computer science courses, courses featuring mathematical concepts or science courses featuring lab demonstrations.

Video Production Format
For analysis purposes, researchers coded the videos examined in study using six primary video production formats, which I’ve summarized below, along with production styles not mentioned in the study.

1) Lecture-Style Video Formats:

  • Instructor(s) with/without Presentation Slides: Features instructor(s) lecturing, with or without PowerPoint slide presentation slides inserted throughout with instructor ‘voice over’ while slide is displayed
  • Office Setting: close-up shots of the instructor filmed at his or her office, typically instructor speaks directly to camera
  • Classroom Setting: video captured from a live classroom lecture
  • Production Studio Setting: instructor recorded in a studio with no audience, typically speaking to the camera

2) Tutorial/Demonstration Video Formats:

  • Video Screencast: of the instructor demonstrating a concept, i.e. writing code in a text editor, or command-line prompt (in the case of computer science courses), using spreadsheet or document
  • Instructor Drawing Freehand on a Digital Tablet, using a software program, which is a style popularized by Khan Academy videos (click here to view an example)

Other Formats not mentioned in the study:

  • Instructor interviewing another expert or guest speaker
  • Instructor delivering lecture in another setting related to the course (though not always), for example an ecologist giving lecture at the beach, an art historian in a museum, etc.
  • Panel Discussion of experts on specific course-related topic

Which format to use? The primary factor that determines which format to use are the objectives of the MOOC or course, and the course content. The course design team typically selects the video formats during the course design phase when the instructional strategy is created, for example: the formats of the video are chosen, the content chosen for each, related student activities or assessments selected, etc.

The second factor determining which format to employ is the amount of resources (dollars) available for video production. This determines right off the bat which tool, program or hardware will be used for the video production. Important to note, the amount of resources invested in video production does not scale to how much students’ learn or to MOOC completion rates. For example, I completed a course on Canvas Network, Statistics in Education for Mere Mortals (my course review here). The course featured video lectures and tutorials, all created by the instructor using low-budget technology. Lectures appeared to be filmed on the instructor’s laptop using a web cam, (power point slides were added, so there was some editing). Each module featured a tutorial, a screen cast where the instructor demonstrated application of various formulas to a data set. I found the professor, Lloyd Rieber, encouraging and personable; he also delivered the content concisely in lecture videos and tutorials. Interestingly, the course completion rate was over 10%, higher than typical MOOC completion rates that are usually lower than 7%.

Key Findings of Study

  • Shorter videos are more engaging. Student engagement levels drop sharply after 6 minutes
  • Engagement patterns differ between the two video formats; engagement higher with the lecture style videos (‘talking head’) which researchers suggest is due to more “intimate and personal feel”
  • Several MOOC instructors interviewed for study felt more comfortable with the classroom lecture format, however this format did not translate well online, even with much editing in production studio
  • For tutorial/demonstrations videos, the Khan-style format where instructor draws on tablet and narrates, was found to engage students more effectively than screen casts. A contributing factor—instructors ability to situate themselves “on the same level” as student
  • Video producers and edX design teams determined that pre-production planning had the largest impact on the engagement effect of the videos. Researchers used a data set within the study to test this idea

Practical Recommendations for Course Design Teams

  1. Identify type and format for each video lecture using course objectives and module breakdown as a guide, and budget. Plan each lecture for the MOOC format and its potential students. Consider copyright terms for images used in videos and slides. Plan ahead by selecting appropriate images, free from copyright during the planning phase
  2. Invest in pre-production planning phase. Segment course content into chunks, using six-minutes per video as a guideline. Identify purpose for each video lecture, and key content points to deliver within each.  Write script for each [lecture video format] and have instructor practice before filming—reduces filming and editing time

  3. For tutorial/demonstration videos introduce motion and continuous visual flow into tutorials, along with extemporaneous speaking so that students can follow along with the instructor’s thought process. Complete basic outline of video beforehand, not full script to be read word-for-word
  4. Provide more personal feel to videos. Try filming in an informal setting (such as the instructor’s  office) where he or she can make good eye contactit often costs less and might be more effective than a professional studio. Coach instructors to use humour, personal stories and convey enthusiasm where possible

Closing Thoughts
MOOCs are here to stay, which makes studies like this one valuable for helping educators be more effective through course design. This study brings us closer to finding the answer to the question which kinds of videos lead to the best student learning outcomes in a MOOC?  Yet it’s a start, there is still much more to be done in understanding how students learn in massive courses, and how institutions can be more effective with investment of its resources for increasing student learning outcomes.

Further Reading:

Nicolas Carr on ‘Social Physics’…The Darker Side of Reality Mining

BigDataImageIt’s this article ‘The Limits of Social Engineering that piqued my interest this week, first because of the image featured in the article which I found appealing, then it was the reference made to Marshall McLuhan, a scholar and author I admire greatly, and finally because it was by Nicolas Carr, author of the book, “The Shallows” which I reviewed this week on my blog. But it’s the article’s unusual topic that grabbed hold of me by the collar and motivated me to share it with readers—something called ‘reality mining’.  Reality mining is an advanced branch of data mining and is central to the book “Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—The Lessons from a New Science that Carr reviews and draws from in his article. Carr provides a good overview of not just the book, but of the science, and hints at the potential ills of reality mining, or as the book’s author calls it ‘social physics’ (or ‘mislabeled’ it as several reviewers of the book on Amazon claim). With reality mining researchers and scientists create algorithmic models using ‘big data’ generated by human movements and behaviours tracked by mobile phones, GPS, wearable tech or tracking devices to analyze and predict social and civic behaviour. Reality mining, with the expansion of mobile phone penetration globally in the past year and now wearable internet enabled devices, is likely the next big thing in data mining. Already many experts extol the virtues of reality mining and what it can do for institutions, society and the public good. As quoted on the book’s website:

John Seely Brown, Former Chief Scientist, Xerox Corporation and director of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC):

“Read this book and you will look at tomorrow differently. Reality mining is just the first step on an exciting new journey. Social Physics opens up the imagination to what might now be measurable and modifiable. It also hints at what may lie beyond Adam Smith’s invisible hand in helping groups, organizations and societies reach new levels of meaning creation. This is not just social analytics. It also offers pragmatic ways forward.”  socialphysics.media.mit.edu/book

We can already catch a glimpse of reality mining in businesses and organizations taking shape. The WSJ featured an article this week by Deloitte that describes the target market for wearable devices which is not consumers, but organizations or ‘enterprise’.  It seems there is unlimited potential for fitting employees with these wearable tech devices to gather data to support better decision-making at the workplace.

Reality mining takes Big Data to a new level, and as Carr emphasizes Big Data can and likely will be used to manipulate our behavior. It’s the idea of manipulation in this context that is disturbing.  Several questions come to mind like this one—who makes the decisions on the actions to take to manipulate a society’s behaviour? And, based on what values?

Below researchers describe how behaviour can be manipulated, as excerpted from “Social Physics” within Carr’s article:

book-cover-hi-res-2-crop-1

Author of “Social Physics”, Alex Pentland will be teaching “Big Data and Social Physics” via the edX platform. Start date: May 12, 2014

“They go into a business and give each employee an electronic ID card, called a “sociometric badge,” that hangs from the neck and communicates with the badges worn by colleagues. Incorporating microphones, location sensors, and accelerometers, the badges monitor where people go and whom they talk with, taking note of their tone of voice and even their body language. The devices are able to measure not only the chains of communication and influence within an organization but also “personal energy levels” and traits such as “extraversion and empathy.” In one such study of a bank’s call center, the researchers discovered that productivity could be increased simply by tweaking the coffee-break schedule.”

Closing Thoughts
Like Carr, I too am somewhat wary of reality mining, or ‘social physics’.  Though in examining Marshall McLuhan’s works, who Carr refers to in the opening of his article, I find wisdom in McLuhan’s words that so accurately describe what is happening now—within the realm of big data for instance.  The website managed by McLuhan’s estate includes snippets of interviews, quotes and links to his works that are worthy of perusing and pondering. I found the quote below applicable and insightful when considered in context of reality mining.

In the electric age, when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate, in-depth, in the consequences of our every action. It is no longer possible to adopt the aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner.”  Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, (p 4)

Worth pondering, is it not?

Further Reading