Need-to-Watch-Videos: Three Clips that Promote Thinking Outside-of-the-Box

I interrupt this regularly featured ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series to bring you three media clips that may promote thinking-outside-of-the-box—a different way to look at three much discussed and researched issues in education. I engaged with three media clips this week that were not targeted to educators specifically, but provided deep insights; each clip presents a unique perspective on a provocative topic in education.

1) What predicts Student Success?
Angela Lee Duckworth: The key to success? Grit

Much researched, pondered and discussed—what predicts a student’s success? This Ted Talk features Angela Duckworth, an educational psychologist who left teaching seventh graders to search for that elusive factor that predicts student success in school. She conducted extensive research to find out. Her research revealed that it’s not IQ, family income, precociousness, or talent, but it’s grit. Grit is defined as passion, perseverance, and relentless drive. Students and adults with grit are in it for the long-haul, they don’t give up when faced with obstacles, but continue moving towards a goal they have set out to achieve.

How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, the book by Paul Tough discusses Duckworth’s work and writes about schools and programs that aim to teach grit through character building education. I read this book recently, and would recommend it to parents and educators interested in learning what contributes to the grit factor [though it's still inconclusive].

• How gritty are you? Click here to take the test. University of Pennsylvania
• Angela Duckworth and the Research on ‘Grit’. Emily Hanford, American Radio Works

2) Educators and Artificial Intelligence
Interview: Charting technology’s new directions: A conversation with MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson.

This clip featuring MIT’s professor Erik Brynjolfsson shifted my [resolute] viewpoint on the role of machines in teaching and student learning. Brynjolfsson discusses recent innovations in artificial intelligence and how it will impact society significantly over the next five years. Though Brynjolfsson didn’t mention education specifically, his talk motivated me to think about the relationship between man and technology quite differently.

I posted several comments this week in response to a blog post about this topic on e-literate, Getting students useful feedback from machine learning. This is the second post on e-literate about machine learning, and both have generated much discussion. My position has been one in opposition to machine assistance, regardless of how it is used. This specific post describes a conversational agent that supports student dialogue in small group discussions by a technique called accountable talk.  When I watched this interview clip something clicked. As I listened to Brynjolfsson speaking of how machines, artificial intelligence can be used in conjunction with humans to create better conditions, I thought of the potential that machines might be able to create with teachers to create better learning conditions.  I haven’t changed my mind completely, but I am looking at this topic from a different point of view.

“… humans and machines are complementary. Machines aren’t perfect or even very good substitutes for humans in some areas. But by working together, by racing with machines, we can do more than the machines by themselves or humans by themselves could do.”

• Getting students useful feedback from machine learning, Elijah Mayfield, e-Literate
• Six ways the edX announcement gets machine grading wrong, Elijah Mayfield, e-Literate

3. How an education icon adapted to the Internet
An interview with Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica

The Internet is disrupting traditional models, ways of doing business in all sectors including education. This interview highlights the issue of adaptation and a change of thinking in response to technology.  Many organizations have adapted quite successfully, some have failed and others continue to struggle.  Which is why I found the interview with the president of Encyclopedia Britannica most intriguing. One would think this iconic company, relied upon for over two hundred years as a primary source of information would be doomed in the age of the Internet. Yet it is not so. Encyclopedia Britannica is flourishing and successful  even though it ceased to print its famous set of reference books last year after 244 years. The company has shifted its model by responding to the societal shifts resulting from technological advancements. In the interview, the president speaks of the natural evolution of the product.

We had known for some time that this day was coming. Given how little revenue the print set generated, and given that we had long ago shifted to a digital-first editorial process, the bound volumes had become a distraction and a chore to put together. They could no longer hold the vast amount of information our customers demanded or be kept as up-to-date as today’s users expect.

The way the company adapted to the digital age is most remarkable. It made me think about how Encyclopedia Britannica was able to respond to the digital age where others have failed. Are there any parallels between Encyclopedia Britannica and education institutions? Some would say absolutely not—Encyclopedia Britannica is a business. I see it differently, what about you?

• Encyclopedia Britannica’s President on Killing Off a 244-Year-Old Product, Jorge Cauz, Harvard Business Review
• Encyclopedia Britannica, britannica.com

Click this image which links to HBR’s webpage featuring the recorded interview and its transcript.

I hope you enjoyed these videos and were inspired in one way or another.

Why Online Courses [Really] Need an Instructional Design Strategy

In this post I examine and define instructional design, and share why it’s essential to the development of online courses.

“Design brings forth what would not come naturally“  Klaus Krippendorff

Developing an online course that is engaging, promotes interaction, motivates learners, and above all facilitates learning is easier said than done.  It’s even more challenging when trying to modify a face-to-face course for the online format. I know because I worked at a four-year college as lead curriculum designer. My job was to collaborate with faculty to transition their face-to-face courses to a 100% online course which was delivered via the schools’ learning management platform, Moodle. During the process of converting more than fifteen courses to 100% online courses, I was able to recognize and appreciate fully the principles and process of instructional design.

The Design Process for Online Courses, by Giulia Forsythe (Flickr)

I have over ten years experience as an instructional designer, which includes creating management development courses and employee training programs. I’ve also developed courses for K-12, including math enrichment curriculum and education programs for parents. I almost always adhere to instructional design principles and a framework for all course design projects, though I’ve found online courses to be the most dependent on sound design principles. In 100% online classes, not only is one building a course, but also a virtual classroom and community.

In this first post of a four-part series on instructional design, my aim is to provide an overview of what instructional design is, and why it’s absolutely essential to online course development. In subsequent posts I’ll cover learning theories and their role in course design, models of instructional design, and I’ll present a framework for online course design that I’m currently working on.

What is Instructional Design?
Though I’m an instructional designer and call myself such, I realize the term is vague. My definition in one sentence— “Instructional design is creating an environment for learning by structuring content and creating activities that engage students and facilitate meaningful learning”.  Also, critical to the concept of instructional design is knowing that it supports the process of learning rather than the process of teaching. Skilled instructional designers are not the subject matter experts, but collaborate with the experts to create environments where students can participate in rich, meaningful learning experiences. Of the many formal definitions of instructional design, I find the following the most accurate:

Instructional Design is defined as “a systematic process that is employed to develop education and training programs in a consistent and reliable fashion” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). In addition, Instructional Design models or theories may be thought of as frameworks for developing modules or lessons that 1) increase and/or enhance the possibility of learning and 2) encourage the engagement of learners so that they learn faster and gain deeper levels of understanding (www.nwlink.com).

Why Instructional Design?
Some critics of instructional design suggest that with abundance information available on the web, anyone can learn just about anything on their own terms and customize learning to their own needs. Instructional design is not at all relevant many argue, the models are inflexible and outdated. Yet I disagree. Even though we have access to unlimited content and can learn just about anything on the web, I suggest that this is all the more reason that structure is needed to guide the learner, frame the experience, even for students seeking a self-directed learning program.

Principles of Instructional Design
In subsequent posts I’ll be writing in detail how readers can apply instructional design principles when developing their own online courses. Below I provide an overview of the  principles that establish a foundation for course development. I’ve summarized the principles into three phases:

I. Analyze: Integral to the design process is analyzing the learners, learning contexts and the purpose for the instruction. Though this step is often overlooked, this phase shapes the course. Included in the learner analysis is examining students’ skill level [technical and education], cultural background, attitudes and motivations for learning, etc.  Another consideration—how will students access content and instruction, i.e. what platform will be used [learning context]. Finally instructional analysis includes identifying the learning objectives [institution established or student created] and the purpose of the instruction i.e. credit, certificate or personal interest, etc.

II. Develop/Select: This phase is time intensive and where most of the work is done. Goals for the course are identified and articulated, which may be specific or general depending upon results from the analysis. This phase includes identifying and selecting content sources on the web and/or developing new content, as well as developing an instructional strategy. The instructional strategy includes selecting the delivery methods or sources for instruction, developing/selecting instructional materials, selecting the applications and methods to support group interaction and tools. Selecting or developing tools or methods for student assessment (as applicable) and course evaluation.

Critical in this phase is developing thorough and detailed instructions for students, and ensuring a user-friendly interface with the delivery platform.

III. Implement: This phase is about putting course into practice with students. Garnering feedback from students is critical to revising and updating the initial design of the course. Conducting formative and summative evaluation is necessary to modify the course interface, materials, content and/or instruction, to better meet the needs of learners. Though revisions and updating to online courses is an ongoing process, as learning and teaching are dynamic, always changing and evolving.

Closing Thoughts
In higher education [and K-12] the design principles for instruction and learning in a traditional face-to-face setting are specific to the four walls of a classroom. But online education has no walls, and uses a delivery method that shifts the model of course development entirely. Instructional design principles and models are essential to deal with the complexities that are inherent with the Web as a delivery method. Instructional design methods are essential to online course development so that the focus is on student learning, not on the technology or the platform. In my next post I’ll review instructional design models, and examine the merits of each in the context of online course development.  Update: Post two in this series, How Course Design Puts the Focus on Learning Not Teaching.

Resources

• Instructional Design, Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition
• Instructional Design in e-Learning, elearnspace
• Dick, W., and Carey, L. & Carey, J. (2004). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Allyn & Bacon; (6th ed.)
• Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Taylor & Francis Group

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.

Four Good Reasons Why Students Need Instructor Feedback in Online Courses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

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

Need-to-Know-News: One HUGE Step Forward for Competency Learning, NEW Open2Study, and More

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

Open Universities Australia launches Open2Study Platform offering open courses to anyone

There are several interesting developments this week in education, three in particular which I’ll cover in this post: 1) The newly launched learning platform, Open2Study to rival the likes of Coursera 2) Competency based learning, which gets a boost in the US with Prior learning Assessments (PLAs) and 3) more MOOC news to ponder.

1)  Open Universities Australia launches Open2Study
This week Australia’s own Open University launched a learning platform Open2Study, which is similar in some ways to Coursera, but at Open2Study courses focus on career exploration and life skills, in addition to those for intellectual development. Like other xMOOC platforms, its courses are free but all participants receive a certificate of completion, “If you complete at least three of the four assessments and average at least 60% for your subject, you’ll receive a Certificate of Achievement” (open2study.com).

“Open2Study isn’t a me-too MOOC; its objective is not merely attracting massive enrolments. It’s the next evolution in online learning, centred on student success,” says Paul Wappett, OUA CEO.

Open2Study provides an engaging and compelling education based on a comprehensive pedagogical model that recognises online learners behave differently, and have different needs from on-campus learners. (PR Newswire)

And, Open2Study does appear to differentiate itself from other MOOC providers; the practical approach will likely appeal to a narrower market, which is a positive move from a sustainability perspective. There is a vocational focus—each course includes a “Where could this take me?“ section that gives learners information on related careers.

• Australia sets the scene for free online education, PR Newswire
• The Aussie Coursera? A new homegrown MOOC platform arrives, The Conversation

2) US Department of Education [DOE] “Encourages” Higher Education to Adopt Competency Based Programs [also known as Prior Learning Assessments]
The DOE appears [very] anxious to communicate its support available to higher education institutions for programs that promote alternative paths to degree completion as per its press release from last week. The DOE encourages higher ed institutions to expand competency based programs as alternatives to traditional programs [based upon credit hours or seat time], and stresses the guidance available to institutions when accessing title IV financial aid.

“This [competency-based programs in which students learn at their own pace] is a key step forward in expanding access to affordable higher education,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We know many students and adult learners across the country need the flexibility to fit their education into their lives or work through a class on their own pace, and these competency-based programs offer those features – and they are often accessible to students anytime, anywhere. By being able to access title IV aid for these programs, many students may now be able to afford higher education.” [Press Release, March 19,  DOE]

This approach is a tough-sell to universities—implementing competency programs implies its acceptance of a learning philosophy that differs from traditional education programming. Yet some institutions are embracing it, including the State University of New York (SUNY), which is implementing a program based on Prior Learning Assessments [the concept of PLA is described further in this post]. No doubt, we will likely see more of PLA programs in the future—this is bigger news than MOOCs. PLA is already an approved and funded alternative to time-to-degree programs, and results are impressive for adults receiving credit from PLA programs.

• SUNY and the Expansion of Prior Learning Assessments, Phil Hill (2013), e-literate
• Prior Learning Assessments, American Council on Higher Education [ACE]
• Student Aid Can be Awarded for Competencies, Not Just Credit Hours, U.S. Says, Kelly Hill (2013), The Chronicle
• PLA Inside Out: An International Journal on Theory, Research and Practice in Prior Learning Assessment, (2012)

3) MOOC News
This week a professor teaching through the edX platform put forth a unique request, he asked prior students [graduates] to help in his MOOC. He invited interested students to be mentors to students within his Ancient Greek Hero course, though on a volunteer basis. This is an interesting idea—actually a very good idea. And, Cousera continues to grow. This week I received an email from Coursera with the following news:

“Over 3 million students have joined the Coursera community since we began our journey in April last year. Today, Courserians hail from over 210 countries and have signed up for a staggering 10 million courses. As a company barely a year old, we’re truly grateful to have you as part of our growing community. From the Coursera Team” [personal email].

Finally, today I read via Stephen Downes daily newsletter OLDaily, about a MOOC Manifesto published through Connecta13. I agree with Stephen, this MOOC Manifesto contradicts just about everything that MOOCs are, or have the potential to be. It’s another example of how some educators view a new and different learning model through the lens of the old .

• MOOC Manifesto (2013), Connecta13
• Harvard Asks Graduate to Donate Time to Free Online Humanities Class, Richard Perez-Pena (2013), New York Times

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