From #gsuhybrid

Foundations of Student Engagement

Whenever I start looking at a new learning object, assignment or assessment, there are a few questions I ask myself.  One of the questions focuses on student engagement.  Before looking at another example of student engagement from the BOLO project and other classes I’ve taught, I want to take a moment to talk about what I see as the foundations of student engagement.

If you start looking into student engagement literature, you will find a plethora of models and terms that have been used to frame questions about engagement.  Sometimes the models may look different, but they are dealing with the same underlying concepts.  Same is true for some of the terms.  My foundation for discussions about student engagement goes back to a paper I came across a number of years ago: Educational Leadership:Strengthening Student Engagement:Strengthening Student Engagement: What Do Students Want. (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2014, from  Yes, it is an old article, but it really helps keep me grounded when I start to think about why I want to change something.

The article gives four goals that are common to people who are engaged in their work:

  • Success (the need for mastery)
  • Curiosity (the need for understanding)
  • Originality (the need for self-expression)
  • Relationships (the need for involvement with others)
    • I add to this interactive digital objects or artifacts.  An interactive tutorial requires the student to actively participate, and so is engaging.

I keep these four goals in mind while working on learning objects, assignments and assessments.  How does the activity help them master the material (this is more than just learning content)?  Does it help the student further understand not only the discipline as a whole, but also previous material?  Does it help them connect to a learning community?  Does it allow the student to express their understanding in their own words, or in their own way?  It is not about a one way interaction: teacher lectures to student, or student responses to questions on an exam only seen by the instructor.  It is about breaking down traditional barriers and creating a dialog, a learning network or community.

I see engagement as the cornerstone of all forms of blended learning.  A “flipped” class in which an instructor provides recorded lectures without interaction has not engaged the student.  It is still a one way interaction, and the student is a passive observer of the lecture.

Don’t get me wrong, one way interactions still have their place.  An interactive learning module that walks students through course material is a one way interaction, but it does snap the student out of passive learning (it is interactive, it requires student responses to continue).  My concern is with passive one way interactions.

When I talk about what I’ve done with colleagues, one thing I emphasize is “why are you wanting to blend/flip/hybridize your class?”  This is where the four goals (SCORE) above come in handy.  If you don’t want to encourage success, curiosity, originality or relationships, what is the point of changing the way you teach?  People who are doing it “because it’s expected” or “admin is telling us to do this” are going to have a tough time creating effective, innovative classes.  Why, because they are not engaged; they are not vested in the new class models.  What has to be done is to help them change their thinking, and start thinking in terms of Success, Curiosity, Originality and Relationship (i.e., how to engage students).  Heck, it’s a win if a teacher stops think about change as something expected, and starts thinking about helping students succeed.

Daily Writing, a way to build engagement

During my first MOOC, I became fascinated by the daily newsletters and the interaction among people based on comments in these newsletters.  When I started adding connectivist (MOOC) constructs into my class, the first was to send out newsletters to challenge my students (and anyone else interested) to write and interact.  These were low stakes writing, and initially I had students maintain blogs to curate their responses and interactions.  I’ll talk about how disastrous it was for me, and how ultimately profitable it was for students, in a later post.  The main focus now is just the idea about daily writing for engagement.

The core of this construct was that the students received a daily newsletter about a specific topic that we were covering.  Usually this was a concept that students struggled with, or a topic that I wanted to integrate with central concepts of biology, like evolution.  If you’re interested, you can visit the newsletter archive here:

At the end of each newsletter was a challenge.  The challenge fell into a few different categories:  Describe the topic in your own words; watch an expert in the field, then discuss what you learned in this topic; answer to a case study; relate to some real world example.  Student responses had to be a minimum of 150 words, on topic without hyperbole, and showing collegiate level writing.  They also had to respond to three of their peers.  Didn’t matter if it was right or wrong, it just mattered that they met the minimum requirements.  When they did, they got credit.  Usually they had 48 – 72 hours to write their post.  These were low stakes because I was not nit-picking their work to give them a “grade”.

I would go in and “rate” their post.  If it was particularly insightful, I might add comments.  If it was wrong, then it gave me a chance to go in and do some remediation with the student and class.  One semester, once the forums were closed, I would add my response.

Of course students grumbled and complained about having to write so much, but every time I’ve done this, I’ve found the students more aware of what was going on in class.  They could answer questions in class that students in previous semesters never seemed to get.  The biggest change was that the students didn’t feel they needed to cram for exams (when I still gave them).  They realized that they were studying all along.

One great anecdote was a student that came into my office after the final exam.  She complained about not learning anything in the semester, and that the writing did nothing for her.  She knew that she had failed the exam, and was telling me this because she was going to challenge the grade.  I just looked at her and said, “are you sure you failed the exam?”  Her jaw dropped open when I told her she got a high A on the exam (above 95%).  She fell into the chair in utter shock.  It took her a few minutes before she could speak, then cry.  She confessed that she had never done well in science, and by the end of the meeting she admitted that she must have learned something.  Other students have told me that they would actually ask each other questions to start online discussions in later biology classes.  I’m going to be sending out surveys to former students to see what they took away from my class, so that will be a future post.

From my perspective, what I found from doing this:

  • Most students meet the 150 word limit, stay on topic, and show collegiate level writing.
  • About 60-75% of the class will actually write significantly more than 150 words.
  • More students respond to my in-class questions, and they do better on in-class case studies.
  • The average on the final exam went up 10% or higher from classes where I didn’t do this type of activity.
  • Students started to spontaneously bring in news articles (newspapers, popular magazines) about biology that had interested them.

Ultimately, the students are building a learning network (aka, a learning community).

Now for the challenge:

The first time I did this was with blogs.  That was a horror story to maintain and grade.  I was a wreck by the end of the semester, so I moved to forums.  That’s better, but you still have to go in and mark each student; a task that becomes progressively harder when you have more and more students.

What I have been working on now is automatic completion status in MOODLE for when the students meet the criteria (thanks to my GTA Kyle for helping with the programming).  Hopefully we can get it so that students get the completion once they post and reply three times (the tricky part is getting it to accept word count and key words).  I can always go back and adjust if I find a student that did not do the work, but that is easier than making sure everyone got the completion status manually.  This will give me more time to respond.


What is student engagement?

When a student is invested in their own learning, they become engaged.

The concept of student engagement really didn’t hit me when I first started teaching.  I was too busy building lectures (we used acetate slides and chalk boards back then), exams, and grading.  In the back of my mind I knew I needed to help motivate students, and so I started experimenting with different assignments and projects.  In reflection, I was working on engagement, but in a haphazard, unfocused way.

The scholarship regarding engagement is down right confusing.  It seems there is a new model of engagement every few months, and people keep throwing money and terms at the issue.  There is an issue there, tangled and thorny, but there are problems with student motivation to learn.  I guess it starts with our society mandating twelve years of primary – secondary education, and then shaming you if you don’t complete a bachelor’s degree.  Let’s face it, no one like being told what to do, and we always seem to turn it into a chore.  Doesn’t matter if it is “good” for us or not, we still perceive it as an inconvenience, waste of time, or an invasion.

During GSU Incept, our Freshman Orientation, I speak at the Academic Meeting, basically a little show where we tell students what we expect out of them.  There are three things I try to bring up to our transitioning high school students:

  • Forty can’t tell twenty, and twenty won’t understand until their forty.  Stop this cycle, we have been where you are, and we know what it takes to get where we are!  Learn from our successes and failures!
  • There are no elevators or escalators to the top of the Ivory Tower of Academics, you have to walk, and don’t expect to be carried.
  • College is an opportunity!  You will be presented with opportunities to learn, to do, and to become.  You won’t have these later.  Parents, don’t you wish you had time to do now all the things you could have done in college?  Students, don’t waste these opportunities; they don’t come around again.

This gets to the heart of motivation and engagement, you ultimately have to want to learn.  But that seems like a rarity in students.  Don’t get me wrong, I see many eager students, but do they want to learn?  Most loose that eagerness when they start realizing that I meant what I said about my expectations, namely that I am expecting students to study at least 12 hours every week.  They’re shocked when I show little sympathy because they just had to go on a week long vacation in the middle of the semester (I have one of these students every semester).  Students are even more shocked when I ask them to map out everything the did the previous week, and then asked them to list their priorities based on that map.  So far, studying or learning has never been at the top.

So, how do you build engagement when intrinsic motivation is lacking?  That is my ongoing internal debate and organizing point when I think of my classes.  I’ll admit, depending on the class, the carrot/stick model is used, but I don’t see that as an effective model in most situations; I mainly use it in classes where student safety is a concern, i.e., lab.  This is where I start having problems describing some of what I do, hence the blog as a way of reflection.

The best way for me to approach this is to talk a little about some of my non-content objectives for students.  Yes, I have course objectives that are not related to the content.  I would like to thank Dr. Sandra Demons for helping me put this in perspective (one comment from one meeting can have a profound impact): “I have to teach them to be adult and professional.”  Dr. Demons taught at Atlanta Metro, a community college in the economically depressed south Atlanta area, and I’ve seen the result of some of her students; they were far better than most.  That one encounter helped me to take some of the things I was already doing, and bring them into focus.  So, what are some of these objectives?

  • Engage with your discipline on a daily basis.
    • A biologist isn’t a biologist only when they are in a class, and a doctor thinks about medicine even outside of work.  Your discipline becomes a core model/paradigm through which you see the world.  Even if it is not an obtuse academic tome, you are constantly reading in your discipline.  This is not something that comes naturally, it is something you have to start doing.
  • Growing to be an independent learner.
    • There is no way any instructor in biology can cover the full content of a class; that is, read the book or publisher PowerPoints to students.  Instead of seeing the instructor as one who lectures to you, start seeing the instructor as a mentor who is there to help navigate, encourage and redirect.
  • Understanding and meeting expectations; become adult and professional.
    • If a doctor has to write a report about a patient going into surgery, does she have the luxury to turn it in late? NO
    • Does a nurse have the option of “questioning” her score on the NCLEX license exam? NO
    • When working in industry, does an industrial biologist have the option to miss a project deadline because they didn’t feel it?  NO
    • Does a research scientist have the option to not turn in a final report to a federal agency just because they didn’t want to?  well, they could, but they will never get money again.
    • Learning to be adult and professional is not something that just happens.  It actually takes time and practice to build those personality patterns.
      • Over the last few years, I’ve spent time looking at Student Handbooks and syllabi from various professional schools, and talking to Nursing and Med School faculties about their expectations.  Frankly, my students aren’t ready.  Listening to professional school faculty, they admit that it is a hard road for most of their students, hence the Drop/Withdraw/Fail rates.  I’ll get into some specifics in later posts that deal with individual classes, but I do want to mention this next one.
      • The following two comments come from the Georgia Regent’s University, Medical College of Georgia’s student policy guide, and both are grounds for expulsion from med school:
        • There are no challenges of exam question answers.
        • Discussion of the exam outside of the exam review is prohibited unless otherwise specified by the faculty. 
        • How many of your students would survive in an environment like this? How many would struggle?  AND YES, people are expelled for doing this, even for challenging one question.  Where is the transition point where they learn these professional personality traits?
      • I’m not going to be this harsh with my students, but I am going to let them know what is coming up.  I’ll let them know that they will have classes where there is a 24 hour turn around time for a 10 page, fully referenced report about a clinical experience.  I’ll even give them assignments to help them get use to rapid response papers.  The thing is, I have to work on getting them to realize that ultimately it is their responsibility to meet the expectations laid out.

So, how do I engage my students not only in the content, but to become adult learners?  That will be in my next few posts.


Rethinking MOOCs

Lisa M. Lane wrote a elegant post on Three Kinds of MOOCs on her blog the other day, and it has me thinking and reconsidering.  She organized current MOOCs into three categories: Network-based, Task-based, and Content-based.  The brilliant part of this classification scheme is that all three principles (network, task and content) are part of all three types of MOOCs; it is just that each type has an emphasis on one of those principles.

Why do I like this?  Because it is at the heart of my attempts to adapt MOOC elements into my courses.  As I’ve said before, the MOOC is just a stepping stone.  It provides us with a new educational paradigm.  Not all courses have to be massive or open to take advantage of the ideas that have been sparked for the MOOC.  I also contend that the MOOC is not for all people or learning levels.  With Lisa Lane’s classification, I need to refine the last thought a little.

The network-based MOOC has an emphasis on the evolving conversation and learning networks, and is indicative of the first generation of MOOCs.  My thoughts regarding the level of the learner/student is most focused on this type of MOOC.  Last week’s #MOOCMOOC seemed mainly focused on generating conversation, even though there were tasks involved.  The building of a learning network was critical.  But this type of MOOC requires some level of understanding, life experience, and intellectual maturity.  The full format does not work well with most undergraduates, especially when you are trying to help them build up the mental framework of a discipline.  Putting a Freshman into such as situation would only add disconnections (but this may well change in the future).

The task and network-based approaches are more in line with helping students build up their intellectual strengths.  This is where I’m focused.  Adapting the tools and principles of the original MOOCs to build courses that help students tackle content, build mental frameworks (content in context), and recognize the importance of the learning community/network.

Now, I would not call what I do as MASSIVE.  First, I’m really bad at publicity, so most people don’t know about project BOLO.  I do want the course and materials to be open, because having other people come in adds perspective to the discussions.  My primary focus though is going to be the students I have in class (I will comment to everyone, but my commitment is to those enrolled in the campus course).  These are reasons I see what I’m doing as based on MOOCs, but not an actual MOOC.

Learning Objects and MOOCification

During #MOOCMOOC last week, someone coined a new phrase (at least for me):  MOOCify.  Basically the idea of turning a current class into a MOOC.

While I love the term, I’m not crazy about the underlying concept.  It’s not that I don’t think it can be done, and it is not because I “distrust” MOOCs.

The reason I’m not crazy about the word MOOCify is that it misses out on a critical point: the MOOC is not for all audiences.  Instead, I would rather talk about adapting the MOOC model.  More specifically, I talk about taking the connectivist foundation of the MOOC, and the tools commonly used in a MOOC, to build a stronger (and more distributed) learning community revolving around a class.

Let me break my thought down using my class as an example.
To start with, the class I’m talking about is a College Level Freshman Biology class.  These students are not ready for a MOOC (and yes, I’m sure about that assessment), and at most, they come in with a “NOVICE” level understanding of the topic.  The course is therefore content heavy.  None of this so far sets up a good MOOC environment.  And the concept of a mechanical MOOC being used is just frightening; this class requires that context be woven with content to build a cognitive framework for higher level biology classes.

So, you have a group of students who require some “instruction”, but need more to build their own learning and frameworks.  So, taking the concept of blogs, discussions and feeds, build a learning network among members of the class.  Open this network to the outside so others who are interested can join in the discussions and activities.  Add to this a daily newsletter to keep the conversation going.  I took tools from my MOOC experiences, opened the discussion to include new perspectives, and facilitated the discussion.  It may be MOOCification, but I think of it more as adapting components that work for my goal.

Now we come to learning objects.  Since this is content heavy, and I want outside participation, I have to include learning objects.  For a little tangent…

During #MOOCMOOC I came across a common refrain of the MOOC being “organic” and needing no “central” space.  I have no idea where this idea came from.  All of the “successful” MOOCs I’ve either participated or lurked on have all had what I refer to as a touchstone, some virtual place where information, objects and artifacts can be found.  Perhaps a centralized feed of participant comments, but always with a calendar of activities and some general guidelines.  The connections made may be organic, but as we learn from biology, you need to have a scaffold to produce any useful form.  So I firmly believe that you need to have some central virtual location.

So, learning objects.  For some reason, I feel that this has become a dirty words.  What is wrong with a vetted learning object, something which a facilitator/mentor/instructor can use to explain a concept, or even more importantly, start a discussion?  Heck, I build learning objects, and yes, I’ll open them to everyone (when they’re ready).

Enough for now…

How to build a MOOC

This post came from discussions in #MOOCMOOC today.  There was a brainstorming session about MOOCs, and a live twitter discussion at #digped.  Among the many things that came up was a discussion as to the scale of a MOOC, and an assertion that they had to be MASSIVE.  This was followed by a concept that the only way to make a course sustainable was for it to be massive so that it could accumulate revenue.  There was also a discussion of how to keep people motivated.  So, after a little bit of reflection, I decided to tell a story.

About two years ago, I came to a realization that biology students were not learning biology.  What were they learning, no idea.  This epiphany came when I was teaching a senior level course.  I asked them to define translation, which for biologists is the genetic process where RNA is used by a ribosome to construct a protein; it is the translation of the nucleic acid code into an amino acid code.  They couldn’t do it.  Well, at least not at first.  I spent nearly an hour coaxing the definition out of them.  They were all upset that I did not just tell them.  It may be the first time that I really blew up at a class.  For those who are not biologists, this is one component of the CENTRAL DOGMA of biology.  Let me say that again, CENTRAL DOGMA.  It is something taught in freshman classes, and nearly every course we teach covers it again in more depth.  They have come across this term every semester, but none of them could give me a definition of it.  One of the students actually said “well if we saw it as an answer choice I could have told you.” 

This was disheartening, and was a real blow to my desire to teach.  I suffered burnout after that semester, and started looking at any alternative I could find (even different careers).  It was as bad as my first bout of teacher burnout, which occurred when a student said to me, “you can’t fail me, I paid for the class.”  That is when I came across MOOCs.  They were an incredible adventure.  It was not about passing a test, but instead, about actively taking part in learning.  NOT active learning, but actively taking part in your own learning.  BTW…I find most of what is called active learning little different from the instructor playing a game with the students; it rarely makes them an active part of the class.  I knew I had to find a way of doing this with my freshman students, but that was the problem.  These were not sophisticated learners, they were not actively engaged in their own learning.  How to do you get a student to actively become engaged?

My answer was to do certain things in stages, but to make them working on tasks daily a major function of the course.  Why?  If you are a biologist, then you live with biology every day.  The paradigm colors how you perceive the world, as it does with any discipline.  Becoming engaged with your discipline is ultimately the only way to master it. 

So, I built a structure I originally called a pseudo-(or petite)MOOC.  Since then, I’ve just started calling it Biology Open Learning Opportunities (BOLO).  What I did was adapt elements of the MOOC for my audience.  I built a structure for their learning, and provided a central virtual place for them to meet (not just the LMS).

The course content was divided into 15 week long topics.  Each day, students received a Newsletter that went into depth about an important concept linked to that week’s topic.   As part of the content, there was a daily challenge for them to blog about.  These blogs became the background research for their milestone papers (about 5 weeks worth of material) that were peer reviewed.  The three milestone papers became the foundation for their semester end reflective learning paper, which I graded.  Along with that, each week had an online quiz that lead to a milestone quiz, which led to an in class final exam (multiple choice, as that is most likely what they will see later).  There were other elements as well, but these were two major components of the framework I set up.

Was there resistance?  Yes, but by the end, I could actually tell just from the questions being asked and how rapidly my questions were answered, that they were picking up more than any previous semester.  It was incredible.

Now, back to what prompted this.  An open online course does not have to be massive to use the foundations of a MOOC.  A massive class is something that happens, and it does not really work for anyone to try to engineer it.  Trying to build a MOOC from the top down, that is, from the administration, does not work.  I have yet to see an example of a mandated MOOC that actually worked.  MOOCs occur when an instructor opens their class, not when a University VP or Dean decides the school needs one.  MOOCs are built by the faculty, and only those that want to go through the effort. 

As a continuation of the story, I was invited to an Admin meeting by our Provost (it was a group of us doing “new” things in the classroom).  One of Admins said that no one on campus was doing anything with MOOCS.  When my turn came, I stood up, turned on the social network I built for my class that was entitled “BIOLOGY MOOC.”  I looked at the admin and said, “some of us are working with MOOCs.” 

To Sum Up:  the concept of a MOOC can be taken and reworked for your audience.  You don’t have to keep everything; instead use the tools that best fit your audience.  Be courage enough to fail (because something could easily go wrong), but be ready to be surprised by a success.  Effective MOOCs can’t be built from the top down.  It has to come from a faculty member that is ready to open their class.  Mandating a MOOC is sure to kill it, because it will not be based on a legitimate learning goal.  BTW  a legitimate learning goal comes from an instructor that knows their audience.

Plagiarism (Why I MOOC)

Yesterday I was mired in a project, so I didn’t join in the #MOOCMOOC discussions.  Today, the facilitators have assigned everyone to work with Storify.  I’m only a marginal fan of Storify, as I haven’t really gotten good submissions from students (they are overwhelmed in most of life that this was just a little too overwhelming).  In general I see it as an alternative route for people it speaks to.  Since I’m not really in that group, I’m going to hold off on this leg of the tech tour that is #MOOCMOOC.

Ultimately, the reason why I MOOC is to listen to what other people are thinking and talking about, and then reflect on that.  It is the alternative perspectives, the conflicting views, and the stray thought that leads to a revelation.  The facilitators at #MOOCMOOC have not really added to the conversation (articles and tools have been out there for a while), but what they have done is provide a time point where people interested in open learning connect.  That is ultimately the story that I want to take part in this week.

Today in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Jeffery R. Young presented an article entitled Dozens of Plagiarism Incidents Are Reported in Coursera’s Free Online Courses.  The interesting item from the article is that people will plagiarize in an online course even when it is for no credit!  The author further discusses how some view this as a teachable moment (some cultures see copying as a way of showing honor and esteem for the work’s creator), cautioning people from being over zealous or flaming the offender.

The part I loved the best was when a student claimed that they did not know that copying was wrong.  I had a student tell me that recently (a senior).  I asked him if he had read my syllabus (which discusses academic honesty), or the section on plagiarism on every assignment, or the tutorial that was posted on plagiarism.  He avoided the questions, saying that he did not know copying was wrong.  This conversation kept going on and on until he finally admitted that he did not read the syllabus or take the tutorial, and only glanced at the assignment instructions.  The teachable moment here was a little more basic (read what you are assigned to read, and read instructions).

I try to make plagiarism very simple for my students.  We are in the biological sciences, and it is extremely rare for anyone to use quotes in scientific papers.  So the first thing I tell students is that they may not quote or copy from any source.  The next thing I emphasize is that they must use their own words.  That one phrase, their own words, is repeated throughout the semester.  If they come and ask, I tell them that I’ll sit down and help them; I never give them the sentence, but try to help them work out what they want to say.  But, this is where the reflection begins…

Today, I started really asking myself what I consider plagiarism in the world of web 2.0.  When is it sharing, remixing or plagiarism?  There are posts in facebook, and even twitter, that I know were taken directly off of a website with no citation or hyperlink (which I’m starting to see as a form of citation).  Would I consider that plagiarism?  No, not really.  But why?

We have the distinction between formal and informal writing.  A facebook post is considered informal, as is twitter and any other form of social media.  In the informal setting, we don’t use all the formal rules of English.  It is in this social setting that we can hash out our thoughts, put them out there for people to comment on, critic, or just to return to for reflection.

Back in high school, when I had to write a term paper, I had to sit there and make note cards that would be turned in for a grade.  There was a formal structure for making these note cards, and a formal structure for organizing them so that they could be linked to my formal outline.  All of the instructions were codified in my textbook and had been presented to me in lecture by my teacher.  We all had to follow that structure.  As you may be able to tell, my mind did not work in that formal structure.  I bowed under the academic pressure and did it, then threw them out before I started to write the paper.  It actually amazes me when I see colleagues using that system; my mind just does not wrap around that structure.  (Actually, let me just say that HATED writing high school term papers, mainly because they were so fragging structured).

The reason for that story is to reconsider how people can use informal settings to work out thoughts.  On those pesky note cards, you were suppose to copy “QUOTES” from the book, as well as make notes.  Well, can’t those also be done in some form of digital setting (and no I don’t want digital note cards).  What if you could allow others to comment?  In other words, what if informal writing assignments are used as a way to help students hash out their thoughts. 

I didn’t realize it at first, but this I think was the reasoning behind the blogging leading to milestone papers I do in my classes.  The idea is simple, and now I’m seeing it as more powerful.  The blog is a tool, open to others in the class or world, where you work out a specific concept.  You then bring the blogs together in constructing your paper.  The paper is FORMAL, thus it must follow the formal rules of English, be cited, and free of plagiarism.  The blog was where you took the work of others and converted it into your own words.

I’ll leave this for now, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this idea…


Reflecting on “what is learning?”

On Tuesday, George Siemens posted a #MOOCMOOC Video about his thoughts on learning and our attempts to structure learning environments.  One of the first things he brought up is that you “can’t model the behavior of others.”  This got me thinking as I worked to clean up some projects yesterday.

As often occurs, the thoughts are various and self-contradicting at times.  So what I was going to do is write about some of these thoughts to see what other people might think.

First:  Lectures…why do we hold onto them.
Last week, I was in a ‘hybrid education’ workshop here at Georgia State University.  One of the participants said that they did not feel comfortable giving up lecture.  I’ve heard this before, and last week, as before, the answer came out that how else do you know if they got the content if you don’t lecture?  I think one reason that some instructors hold onto lecture is a perception of “doing your job”.  Your suppose to instruct students, therefore you must show that you have instructed, and what better way to do this than to lecture.  Some people also consider themselves good lecturers. They make it fun, they tell jokes, tell stories, dance around in costumes, or whatever to help motivate engagement of students.  For many though, I think it comes down simply to the idea that as long as I have presented to the students the content, my job is done.  Then all they have to do is assess to see if the student got the knowledge they imparted.

I don’t think we hold on to lectures because it is the best model of education, but because we have a long history of using this style to convey knowledge.  Archaeologists are now showing us that this educational style may be older than we thought.

To sum this up:  many people hold on to lecture styles because they think it is the only way to prove that they presented the information to students.

Second: Modeling behavior.  George mentioned that modeling behavior, especially in learning, is “impossible”.  Still, we have done it for generations.  When all we had were experts that could present knowledge in person (no on-demand access to information), the lecture model seemed to work.  We also model social behavior from a young age, and generally teach children what society holds to be good ethical/moral behavior.  Does it always work?  NO.  But for the vast majority of us, it worked in part.  When you look at children (up to around age 6), you have to have some structure, some idea about their developmental needs.  As they grow older, their needs change.

So the question that keeps coming to mind is when and how do you start adapting to the changing developmental needs of the individual.  As I’ve mentioned before, most freshmen are not ready for a fully open class like the cMOOCs.  They are not intellectually inferior, but developmentally, they are not fully mature.  In situational leadership concepts, they are still in maturity stage 1: they lack the self-reflection (which comes with maturity) and self-direction (they don’t know what they need to learn), as well as lacking the ability (or unwilling) to accept the responsibility of this learning model.  As such, they still require direction (structure) to learn the self-reflection and self-direction needed, as well as to gain confidence to accept the responsibility of their own education.  The question now becomes how to model something like this.  My answer is that you have to provide multiple avenues, and low stakes assignments.

One thing to note:  as we move further into the digital age, it is very possible (even likely) that students will change in what they need from different educational levels.  I’m not suggesting that the average 12 year old will be ready for college, but instead that what we need to build to assist their education will be different.

That’s all for now.  Back to projects.

Perceived Problems in MOOCs (Part 4: A Degree Means Something)

I’m skipping the fourth proposition in David Youngberg’s April 13th Chronicle commentary because it is very ill conceived and insulting to those who have degrees in English and the other ‘Liberal Arts’.  Not only does it show a poor definition of liberal arts, but it also shows a poor model of assessment.  Instead, I’m going to focus on the fifth poposition.

David Youngberg’s fifth fundamental problem with a MOOC is that “Money can substitute for ability.”  It took me a couple times reading through this part of the article to figure out what he was trying to get at with this title.  So that my comments are clear, I’ve pasted his paragraph dealing with this proposition.  I’ve also highlighted some points I feel are critical.
Higher education leads to a better salary because a college degree is a signal. Yes, you gain practical skills in college, but a degree is largely about showing potential employers that you’re smart and hard working. Grades function the same way. Get an A in philosophy and people will find you impressive even if what you learned isn’t practical. But the signal only works if most people didn’t get an A. Signaling is relative.

If your wondering, the highlight colors are akin to National Security warnings.  In this case, they are warnings about a really bad perceptual model: that getting a degree at a prestigious school is more important than learning anything, i.e., that money buys success.  Thoughout this whole part of the article, you start to see through the mask.  A degree should be reserved for the elite.  Beyond that, there are some major misconceptions that my friends in industry would really gripe at.

Let’s start with “…a college degree is a signal.”  That is very true.  It is a signal, but of what?  Does a college degree really show that a person is “smart and hardworking”?  NO, and many people that I meet are starting to realize that, both in academics and in industry.  What is more important is the concept of competencies.  You want to know what the person is competent at doing.  The Bolonga process is based on showing competencies, as is the Degree Qualificaiton Profile from the Lumina Foundation here in the states.  How many corporate giants have to say that they are looking for competent people before the message is heard?  David Youngberg focuses his attention on getting an A as the standard of excellence, but what does an A tell you?  Is the person smart, or could they game the system?  A colleague shared this video with me during #moocmocc.

Tom Peters is a strong voice in business management, and he is telling people that the A does not demonstrate a person who going to be good for the company.  But why?  Learning how to game an academic situation to get an A does not provide the skills needed (or desired) in a rapidly evolving global economy/society.  Do you really want a passive learner who only knows how pass an exam, but not necessarily learn and create, manning your operations?
David Youngberg is more concerned with impressing people with a good grade, instead of impressing them with skills, abilities, knowledge or even a variety of intellectual models.  Philosophy for him is not practical, though it has informed even his discipline for centuries.  The liberal arts are downplayed to business communication, instead of being the seeds for inspiration and innovation.  How many of our greatest thinkers were also accomplished artists or musicians?  (here is a good article if your interested:
“Signals are relative,” and that is very true.  But what are the signals we are now looking at, and what do they tell us?

After this last problem, David Youngberg descends into a strange account of why you don’t want to make education cheap.  This seems inspired by game theory, but is ultimately reductio ad absurdum, with the conclusion that if education was cheap, everyone would get an A, and thus devalue the meaning of an A.  I think he is holding a little to strongly to the supremecy of an A.

For me, the article revealed a very odd way of looking at the world and education, and the arguments presented were not well considered and out of touch with how the world is changing.

Does this mean that I view online education and MOOCs as the saviors of education?  Do I think that Udacity will ultimately doom universities and college?  NO.

What is occuring now in online education is equivalent to children playing in a sandbox.  We have new toys, and we’re learning to use them to influence our world.  Will all of our play produce something that works successfully?  NO, but it will change how we play our games.

As we move into this new age, we are going to what to know the competencies of an individual, not just some grade given.  This does not mean just some sort of certificate or badge.  We are going to want to see what the person is capable of doing (the growing use of ePortfolios is a great example).  The MOOC as it stands now may not even be around in 10 years save for a historic construct.  Individuals will take this foundation and adapt, remix, and rebuild, but that is the nature of Web 2.0 and the amazing connections that we can now form in an information rich era.  David Youngberg’s arguments are just a dying gasp from a comatose educational era.

Perceived Problems in MOOC (Part 3 -weird employees)

NOTE:  yes, I’m blogging multiple times today.  The April 13th chronicle commentary by David Youngberg really inspired me to put down some thoughts regarding MOOCs.  So there will be a couple more posts today.

Daivd Youngberg’s third criticism of MOOCs (and I would gather all online degrees) is that “employers avoid weird people.”  While repetitive from my last blog, but…WHAT?  I’m not sure what business he is talking about, but I know some mighty strange people who work in all manner or technical fields.  Come down to DragonCon here in Atlanta, GA, and I’ll introduce you to some of them (even those who have high ranking positions).  In this case, we may need to have a definition about weird if we are going to accept this proposition.

What bothers me about this argument is that Youngberg is either tell those of us who participate in MOOCs that we are weird, or that companies are so stupid that they can’t spot a potential problem applicant.  How many time have you had students who thought they were going to change the world?  How many of you have had young assistants or graduate students who thought they were going to lead the next revolution in your discipline?  It is plain old neurophysiology and aging at work.  They all soon realize that they are not as revolutionary as they thought, and the work environment molds them.

Most HR professionals I know can spot the non-team player fast, and coming from a college or university does not guarantee that a person will be a team player.  I don’t see where the link between “unconventional degree” and “radical thinker” comes from.  There is no reference to studies, no evidence, so I left to wonder where this idea started.

Of all the arguments, this is the one that seems the most absurd and out of touch.  Most of the people I know in HR and corporations are looking for people who are competent and don’t need extensive training.  They have a probation period to feel out how they will fit in.  I don’t see an unconventional degree as labelling them weird, and let’s face it, even the best screening practices fail.