How Course Design Puts the Focus on Learning Not Teaching

This is the second post in a series of four on instructional design for online courses. The goal of this series is to introduce a fresh, innovative approach to course design.

Instructional design, also known as learning design, appears to be making a comeback, which is most fortunate given that I am writing a series on this very topic. Massive open online courses [MOOCs] that mimic the classroom model where the learner is passive and the instructor is not, highlights the need for fresh, new approach to course design. And it’s not just MOOCs that need help, but numerous courses currently offered online; many are in need an overhaul to create an environment focused on learning, rather than one that focuses on instruction. My aim here is to provide readers with a course design framework, information and tools for designing online courses. These tools and skills appear to be in demand by educators that are trying to adapt their courses and teaching methods to an online or blended format.  Some educators also find when entering into the MOOC world of instruction, they are in need of a different skill set from what is required for face-to-face teaching.

In the first post of this series, Why Online Courses [Really] Need Instructional Design I wrote about the dire need for instructional design: how it is needed to guide the process of learning for students, and guide the teaching of the course as well. A courses’ structure is a reflection of the design teams’ [or designer] belief in how people learn. The teams’ learning perspective translates into the choices made for instructional tools, the delivery methods, application activities and assessment methods for the course. We can see this in traditional higher education, which for the most part ascribes to the cognitive theory of learning, a theory that rests on the assumptions that learning is an internal process; a function of the learners memory. It’s an instructor-focused paradigm, where the teacher describes concepts for the learner via instruction, and in some cases relies upon visual representations for reinforcement. (Roblyer & Doering, 2010). This model still is the primary model in colleges and universities—professors lecturing to a class of [passive] students. Even though considerable research proves that students learn better when active in the learning process [in keeping with the constructivist theory], the cognitive theory prevails. George Siemens, co-founder of the first MOOC noted in a recent blog post:

The current MOOC providers have adopted a regressive pedagogy: small-scale learning chunks reminiscent of the heady days of cognitivism and military training. Ah, the 1960′s. What a great time to be a learner.” gsiemens, March 10, 2013

Before I move on and provide further examples, I’ll review four learning orientations—beliefs in how people learn. I wrote about each theory in-depth in a previous post, A Tale of Two MOOCs: Divided by Pedagogy, though here I’ve put together an image that summarizes the core principles of each.

When examining the image [above], one can see how learning theories influence the methods of instruction for a course. This diagram is not meant to be an implementation tool for course design, but an information source. In subsequent posts of the series I’ll review how learning theory is incorporated into the design of a course during the initial phase, the analysis phase [following the analysis is the development phase and then implementation].

Image shows four perspectives on learning based upon theoretical principles. Instructional methods associated with each, adjacent to respective quadrant. Orange quadrants represent a student focused learning model, blue instructor focused.

In another article published recently, The Pedagogy of MOOCs, the author suggests that xMOOCs offered through platforms such as Udacity, are a step backward for education. Rather than leveraging the technology and the thousands of students to advance learning, where students become contributors to the course, the MOOC applies instructor-centered teaching and assumes the learner is passive – an empty vessel.

Closing Thoughts
The crux of my post, the point I would like to leave with readers, is that a fresh, new perspective is needed for teaching and course design—course design is about creating environments to help students learn. As new courses are developed or transformed from face-to-face to an online format, the focus should not be on the technology, the platform, the video lectures, the forums, the instructor, but on the students —what methods will facilitate their learning? How will they learn? Stay tuned for my next post in this series.

Resources:

• The Pedagogy of MOOCs, Paul Stacy
• How would MOOCs should be designed and structured differently? Learner Weblog
• Opinion: The Case for Learning Designers, by Peps McCrea
• Group work advice for MOOC providers, George Siemens
• Salomon, G. (1991). From theory to practice: the international science classroom — a technology-intensive, exploratory, team-based and interdisciplinary high school project. Educational Technology, 31 (3), 41-44.

Need-to-Know News: iVersity’s Contest, Students not-so College Ready & PD for Educators

In this ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series I aim to 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.

Several significant developments transpired this week in the education arena. I’ll highlight the key need-to-know stories here—events that will likely spark discussion and perhaps even debate among educators. iVersity’s MOOC contest has over 250 applications. Each applicant is vying to have his or her course featured on iVersity’s platform in Fall 2013—voting is open! Also, the National Center for Education and the Economy [NCEE] released a report on college readiness for high school students—results are distressing, and is more fodder for the discussion about education reform. And educators have new options for professional development online, courtesy of MOOC provider Coursera.

1) iVersity’s MOOC Fellowship Contest
The MOOC Production Fellowship Contest to date has over 250 MOOC applications from scholars around the world are in for review. The selection committee [called the jury by the fellowship], will choose ten courses, and each winner will receive 250,000 euros to develop and launch his or her course on iVersity’s platform for Fall 2013. Consideration is also given to votes from the Web public. One vote per person, and one must register on the platform to vote. Click here to view the submissions and cast your vote for the course you feel is worthy of winning.

What is the criteria? According to the website, the fellowship is looking for “creative, innovative and sustainable MOOCs”, though it’s not clear what the definition of sustainable is. The contest sponsors, Stifterverband and iVersity hope to “raise awareness for the potential of digital technology in education and seek to activate a process of creative adaptation within the academic community”.

Screen Shot of one of courses submitted to the MOOC Contest

The MOOC Applicants
The courses submitted to date are impressive. Each submission includes a brief video introducing the course (some are very clever), a course description, objectives and references. I perused the site and reviewed only a handful, and included three of my favorites below. The video clips that accompany each submission give an excellent two-minute [or less] synopsis of the [proposed] course.

• Design 101 (Or Design Basics), Mr Stefano Mirti and Prof. Vanni Pasc
• Foundations of Educational Technology, Dr. George Veletsianos and Audrey Watters
• Gutenberg to Google: The social construction of the communications revolution, Prof. William Kovarik

2) Community College Faculty Set Bar Low for Students
The National Center for Education and the Economy [NCEE] released a [discouraging] report “What Does It Really Mean to Be College and Work Ready?”

NCEE has just released What Does It Really Mean to Be College and Work Ready?, a study of the English Literacy and Mathematics required for success in the first year of community college. On May 7th, during a day-long meeting, key education and policy leaders joined NCEE to discuss the results of the study and its implications for community college reform, school reform, teacher education, the common core state standards, and vocational education and the workplace.

Though the skills gap is nothing new, what is new is the research that shows how little community college educators expect from students—the bar is set low, way low. The study also found that assessments used in college classes were lacking, most consisted of multiple-choice questions that demand very little in the way of complex reading skills and no writing.

• Low Bar, High Failure, by Paul Fain, Inside Higher Ed
• Skills From High School Don’t Match College Demands, by Caralee Adams, Education Week
• A serious disconnect in college education, by Matthew Dembicki, Community College Times

3) Professional Development for Educators
MOOCs may have found a niche, professional development for educators. Educators can collaborate and develop a network with other educators, which is what many cMOOCs have been doing for quite some time now. Coursera has taken a step in this direction.

Today we are extremely pleased to announce the launch of a teacher professional development category on Coursera. We believe that helping teachers improve their skills is an important contribution that we can make to the education of students everywhere. We are truly excited about the possibilities that having these courses available for free online, to be used independently or in a blended learning capacity, will open up for teachers, schools, and districts. [blog.coursera.org]

Titles include Foundations of Virtual Instruction, Surviving Your Rookie Year of Teaching, and The Dynamic Earth: A Course for Educators. Click here for full list.

4) Saylor’s Updated Platform and New Courses
Saylors’ updates include dividing courses into three sections, 1) Saylor University, the core courses, 2) Saylor K-12, newly unveiled, pre-college courses, and 3) Saylor Professional Development. Visit saylor.org.

Have a good weekend. I will continue with my instructional design blog series on May 13.

Why MOOCs Are Hindering and Not Helping Higher Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need-to-Know News: Globalization of MOOCs, $500,000 Prize for Faculty & Ed Tech Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Ed Tech Tools

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

Have a great week!

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

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

Stanford University launched new MOOC platform NovoEd this week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Designing a New Learning Environment’ course offered through NovoEd

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Ed-Tech Tool to Support Interaction in Online Courses

Smartsparrow.com

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

Have a great week!

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.