Wednesday, September 17, 2014

New isn't always best


I've written many times about the unnecessary polarization of the debate between traditional and digital educational practices. It's all too easy to create conflicts when there shouldn't be any. It's true that we need to move away from all over-reliance on lectures and instructivist pedagogy but we shouldn't simply abandon methods that can continue to play a role in education. There are times when a well-planned lecture is exactly the right method to deliver a message and simple multiple choice tests can serve a useful purpose.

I was interested to read a post by Ryan Tracey, Let’s get rid of the instructors! where he presents a defence for the more traditional xMOOCs of Coursera and edX, often criticised for their lack of collaboration and learner empowerment. He lists several cases where an instructivist approach with recorded lectures, prescribed reading, self-tests etc is probably the most appropriate. When you are new to a subject and want a basic introduction then it's good to have it presented in a structured and logical manner. Inquiry and collaboration require a higher level of knowledge and are time-consuming so if time is short the traditional approach will be best. If you need to learn something to do your job you have no time to spend on exploring and working it out for yourself; you want the information presented clearly and then put it into practice. Of course, once you've grasped the basics you can explore and collaborate to learn more but the initial phase may be less interactive. A lot of learning is about repetition and memorization, requires stamina and enormous patience and is generally a solitary effort. Repetitive traditional drills are often the only way to learn.

So these xMOOCs do fulfill an important role and we often wrongly assume that all learners have the same preferences as we. Not everyone wants to investigate freely or work in peer groups. Some simply want to get on with it in their way and resent being forced into group work that can be counter-productive if the group does not pull together. As Ryan rightly points out the fact that an xMOOC is instructivist doesn't prevent enthusiastic learners from investigating some aspect further under their own steam or with a small group from the course.

While the learner is free to work their way through the curriculum along the pre-defined weekly path, they are also free to inquire, explore and discover at their discretion within a thoughtfully structured environment.
The point is that we need to choose the appropriate methods for each situation and use the best tools for the job. Not all courses need to be open, constructivist and flexible. Sometimes the old approach is better. In our enthusiasm for the new we should not simply discard the old as irrelevant. Making the right choices is the challenge for today's educators. Let's build on past practices, not just break with them.

As history reminds us time and time again, no one view is ever the “right” one – at least, not all the time. Our perspective is so dependent on the circumstances that we learning pro’s must appreciate the problem before trumpeting or poopooing the solution.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Should we ask students to switch off their devices?


I got a bit of a shock when I read a new article by Clay Shirky, one of the most high profile advocates of the digital revolution, about his decision to ask students to switch off their devices in class, Why I just asked my students to put their laptops away. Up till now such an idea has been dismissed as a sign of the teacher's hostility to technology and that it is the teacher's responsibility to make the class time as engaging as possible to keep students involved and to counter multitasking. However the issue of multitasking and distractions is more insidious and even one of the leading authorities in social media has to take a step back.

The problem is that today's social media and devices are simply too compulsive. Even with the best will in the world to concentrate on one thing at a time we can't stop ourselves from quickly checking what's going on out there, especially with the presence of all forms of alerts to lure us in. Another factor is the myth that multitasking shows that we are effective workers and that sitting in a meeting or class simply listening is an admittance that we have nothing else we need to do.

People often start multi-tasking because they believe it will help them get more done. Those gains never materialize; instead, efficiency is degraded. However, it provides emotional gratification as a side-effect. (Multi-tasking moves the pleasure of procrastination inside the period of work.) This side-effect is enough to keep people committed to multi-tasking despite worsening the very thing they set out to improve.

Every time your attention strays to check an update or answer an e-mail you lose something else. You may think you're still listening to what is going on in the room but even if you follow the gist you are unable to reflect or grasp the nuances. While it is true that we have always had distractions in classrooms when things get boring such as writing messages on bits of paper, today's distractions come with graphics, sound and video and are always going to trump whatever goes on in the room.

The form and content of a Facebook update may be almost irresistible, but when combined with a visual alert in your immediate peripheral vision, it is—really, actually, biologically—impossible to resist. Our visual and emotional systems are faster and more powerful than our intellect; we are given to automatic responses when either system receives stimulus, much less both. Asking a student to stay focused while she has alerts on is like asking a chess player to concentrate while rapping their knuckles with a ruler at unpredictable intervals.

So what's the solution? Here in Sweden our education minister has proposed to ban mobiles in the classroom to counter multitasking but that seems to be missing the point completely. We all need to learn how and when to use technology and when to switch it off. In classrooms and meeting rooms there are times when the teacher or leader of the meeting is perfectly entitled to ask everyone to switch off because this task requires full concentration. It's like having the door or windows open - it's nice to hear and see what's going on outside but when you need to concentrate it's sometimes best to close the door, shut the window and maybe even pull down the blinds in order to concentrate.

Attention is a vital skill to learn. If we can't focus very little gets done. But that doesn't mean banning devices; it means learning to use them wisely and becoming aware of the irresistible lure of the sirens' cry.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Take note

David Truss (@datruss) started something when he tweeted this photo showing an extreme version of a common phenomenon in classrooms and lecture halls everywhere. The ensuing Twitter discussion then lead to a blog post by David, 4 notes on taking notes.

The problem with this photo is that the students aren't taking notes at all, they're simply copying. They do this because the information shown on the board is only available at that moment and represents a pedagogy of scarcity and exclusivity. If the material was published on the net they wouldn't be jostling to get the best photo, they might instead be discussing the issues raised by the material. Of course it's handy to quickly take a photo of a diagram or slide that you see in class but it isn't worth anything until you actually process the information yourself. The questions that immediately arise for me are:
  • Why didn't the teacher make the slides available to the students in advance and used class time to discuss the material?
  • Why not devote more time to explaining how to take meaningful notes and the importance of processing and reworking information rather than simply copying verbatim.
  • Students are still stuck in the traditional view of learning as the memorisation of facts. 
In David Truss' blog post he comments that taking a photo is a lousy way to take notes since it is not searchable and you haven't processed the information presented. It's the same as copying a friend's notes on a lecture you missed. You get the bare facts but miss the internal processing of deciding what to note and how to express it that is so essential to learning. The learning is not in the notes it's in the process. Instead of copying these students should learn to use mind-maps and other note-taking methods to process and rework what they hear in class or in other learning spaces.

Take notes or create notes? There are times when copying notes might be a useful thing to do, but for the most part, that is a rather passive way to learn information (unless you use specific strategies to help you take those notes). Students creating the notes, or doing a task whereby the notes are used to help construct a learning experience, is far better than copying words onto a piece of paper, or into a digital document, or for that matter, taking a photo of the information.

This leads into another ongoing discussion about note-taking; whether it is better to take notes digitally or by hand. I have always believed that it's not the device or the medium that matters, it's how you work with them but an article in Scientific American, A Learning Secret: Don’t Take Notes with a Laptop, claims that handwritten notes are actually more effective. The reason is that we can usually type fast enough to simply write what is said whereas handwriting forces you to summarise and select the information you note and therefore allows you to internalise the information to a greater extent.

Technology offers innovative tools that are shaping educational experiences for students, often in positive and dynamic ways. The research by Mueller and Oppenheimer serves as a reminder, however, that even when technology allows us to do more in less time, it does not always foster learning. Learning involves more than the receipt and the regurgitation of information. If we want students to synthesize material, draw inferences, see new connections, evaluate evidence, and apply concepts in novel situations, we need to encourage the deep, effortful cognitive processes that underlie these abilities. When it comes to taking notes, students need fewer gigs, more brain power.

The moral of all this is not to abandon technology and return to the good old days as some might hope. It is once again a lesson that we need to learn to use the right methods and devices in the right situation and for the right reasons. Taking photos of someone else's notes or copying verbatim may give an illusion of learning but are an example of using powerful technology in the wrong way. We need to learn to use our devices wisely and be more aware of their possibilities and limitations. Instead of seeing a divide between old and new we should see a wide range of tools and methods all of which can help us learn as long as we choose wisely.

Note: I always try to credit the photos I use but in this case I don't know who took the original. If I have infringed on any copyright here I will of course remove the photo and link to it instead.

Monday, September 1, 2014

Who loves conference calls?


Even after many years of synchronous video meetings using free tools like Skype and Google Hangouts as well as more sophisticated e-meeting systems like Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate and Webbex I'm constantly amazed that so many people still use the telephone conference call. The conference call lacks all the features available in even the free e-meeting tools on the net; you can't see who's in the meeting, you don't know who's speaking and you can't share any information. Often it's hard to tell who is speaking and when many participants are calling from their mobiles the speech quality can fluctuate greatly.

A recent article in the Atlantic, Study: Nobody Is Paying Attention on Your Conference Call, looks at conference call behaviour and reveals that the majority of participants are busy doing other things during a conference call. When no-one sees you you're free to carry on doing a host of other things and participants fade in and out of the meeting, only reacting when the subject directly affects them. Leading a conference call can be a very lonely job and sometimes it's hard to know if there's anyone out there at all. I'll admit that a well-chaired meeting with a clear agenda and committed participants can work but the conference call has few positive features to make it worth the effort.

The missing elements are presence and empathy; the feeling that you are part of a group with a common objective and the ability to see colleagues' reactions to what you say. E-meeting tools can go a long way to providing these. A participant list can at least indicate who is logged in, a chat function allows questions to be asked or useful links distributed and of course video makes everyone visible. Of course people tend to multitask and daydream even with these features but that has always been the case even in face-to-face meetings. However, the features of e-meeting tools can help to promote a higher level of participation and thereby combat the passivity of voice-only meetings.

Effective meetings, just like good courses, require focus, participation, presence and empathy. Without these elements participants' concentration wanders and they eventually switch off. Wherever we meet and interact we need stimulating and creative environments where all participants feel welcome and where the aims of the meeting are clear and meaningful to all. This applies equally to face-to-face as well as online meetings. People who feel involved in a discussion don't daydream or multitask. We all need to improve our ability to exploit the available tools and methods (digital and analogue) that facilitate greater participation.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Someone to watch over me


One of the main arguments for online education is that it allows you to study at your own pace. Course material, asynchronous discussion and collaborative tools let you study whenever you want and wherever you are. This works for those who have the necessary self-discipline and study skills but it could be claimed that this flexibility is the Achilles heel of online education. Most people lack the necessary skills to take advantage of online education and as long as those skills are not developed in schools, adult and vocational education this mismatch will continue.

Laura Vanderkam questions whether we are overestimating our self-study skills in her article on Fast CompanyCan people really learn at their own pace?. The article's focus is on corporate training but the conclusions are relevant even to higher education and in particular MOOCs. An increasing amount of training is carried out online and the flexibility and scalability of online training clearly appeals to top management since it allows training to take place whenever the staff have time and does not demand costly formal training days. However when left to our own devices it's hard to prioritise online learning since there are always more pressing tasks that demand attention. Independent online learning can work if there is a clear link to tangible career-enhancing rewards or you have high internal motivation. Otherwise it's hard to keep up the momentum and the result is that we drop out or slowly fade out of the course. I suspect that many of the people who fail to complete a MOOC simply didn't have the positive momentum that is provided by clear rewards, supportive teachers and a sense of belonging to a learning community.

Even if I feel perfectly comfortable with independent self-study I still find it hard to stay focused on an online course. I have a number of self-study projects that I start up with great enthusiasm but which fade away after a few weeks of admirable concentration. I've started studying many new languages this way acquiring a few basics but then when it gets more complicated I tend to find other things to do instead. A couple of years ago I signed up for a very traditional evening course in Arabic for beginners with the aim of at least learning the alphabet and basic phrases. The teacher was friendly but the teaching methods were extremely old-fashioned and uninspiring. I achieved my objectives mostly due to self-study but what kept me going was the "fear" of not keeping up with the class and "disappointing" the teacher. Despite my advancing years I became a schoolboy again and the simple motivation of not wanting to be worst in the class meant that I kept studying during the week. There was no interest in a continuation course so I thought I could go on independently using all the open learning opportunities I write so often about. The problem was that there was noone to impress, no class to keep up with, no teacher to please. It sounds incredibly childish but it points to a key problem with self-study.

The challenge for all online education, including MOOCs, is providing the support, encouragement, challenge and sense of common purpose needed to keep learners on track. I don't think it matters so much whether you meet a teacher face-to-face or online but most of us need to feel that someone is watching over us and has expectations. That person is often a teacher but it could also be a peer group. The most important factor is that someone out there wants me to succeed and wants to check how I'm getting on. Someone to watch over me.


Thursday, August 21, 2014

Your book just tweeted

I always like to find examples of how digital and analogue can interact with and complement each other and that there is not always a conflict between the two. Penguin Books in Brazil have gained considerable media attention recently by releasing a smart bookmark that communicates with you via Twitter (see article in Springwise, Smart bookmark lets authors tweet at readers who have neglected their novel). The premise is that we are so distracted by social media today that it's easy to start a book and then forget it. Now the book gets a voice in the digital cacophany.

The concept is well demonstrated in the video below but basically it's a physical bookmark that contains a light sensor, timer and a nano-processor with wifi. You leave it in your book and if you don't open the book for a while the bookmark will tweet you a gentle, witty reminder in the style of the book's author. If you still don't pick up your book you will continue to receive regular reminders. Exactly how the tweets come in the style of the book's author is not explained in the articles I have read but I suspect that each book comes with its own bookmark preloaded with that author's potential reminders. You probably can't use that bookmark in any other book though an interesting development could be allowing the bookmark to register the new book via its barcode.

Yet another example of the internet of things where just about everything in our lives will be able to communicate.


PENGUIN BOOKS | Case Tweet For a Read from Rafael Gonzaga on Vimeo.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Learning is about relationships - and it's complicated

network by michael.heiss, on Flickr
CC BY-NC-SA Some rights reserved by michael.heiss 
An article by David L. Kirp in the New York Times, Teaching is not a business, criticizes two high-profile trends: the market approach to education with a focus on accountability, testing and league tables as well as the over-belief in disruptive technology. Turning schools and colleges into competitive businesses may be a politically popular strategy but he sees little evidence that it actually works. Competition simply widens the gap between winners and losers and strangles the vital roles of collaboration, community and support.

Firing teachers, rather than giving them the coaching they need, undermines morale. In some cases it may well discourage undergraduates from pursuing careers in teaching, and with a looming teacher shortage as baby boomers retire, that’s a recipe for disaster. Merit pay invites rivalries among teachers, when what’s needed is collaboration. Closing schools treats everyone there as guilty of causing low test scores, ignoring the difficult lives of the children in these schools — “no excuses,” say the reformers, as if poverty were an excuse.

This marketization of education is a quick fix that is easy to understand and provides superficial evidence of success with "good" schools and colleges rising to the top and "bad" ones closing down. The underlying factors behind students' underachievement are seldom given much attention.

While these reformers talk a lot about markets and competition, the essence of a good education — bringing together talented teachers, engaged students and a challenging curriculum — goes undiscussed.

Although the article deals mainly with the problems of treating education as a market the author also sees technology as a similar smokescreen that prevents us from dealing with the real issues in education. All the focus is on new tools and devices and far too little attention is given to discussing teacher development, student support and building a culture of learning. Despite my interest in e-learning and the role of technology in education I don't believe that it is the answer to better education. No amount of mobiles, laptops, tablets, social media, MOOCs or open educational resources will lead to better learning because learning is fundamentally about relationships. Many of the most crucial elements of learning are intangible: a sense of belonging, a safe and supportive environment with teachers and colleagues who inspire and support you, giving you regular feedback and challenging you. Technology however can help to create such a supportive environment.

Technology is important because it is so embedded in our workplaces and everyday life that to ignore it would risk making our education system irrelevant. Technology enables us to collaborate in ways that were simply not possible before and gives all schools access to knowledge and resources that were previously locked away or only accessible to a privileged few. The key question today is how do we create positive and supportive learning environments both in the classroom and online. There's a lot of focus on the drop-out rates in online courses but millions drop out of classroom education; even if they are still physically in the room they have dropped out mentally. Let's forget these endless and pointless discussions about whether classroom is better than online and look at how to make all forms of education more supportive, inclusive and empowering. All forms of education can be effective if the teachers and students are given the support and tools they need.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Unbundling and rebundling education

Lego Porn by EJP Photo, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License  by EJP Photo

A popular theme of the last few years has been the unbundling of higher education. This refers to the move from the all-inclusive model where a university offers degree programmes, courses, examination, support, tutoring, guidance etc to the unbundled model where a wide range of different institutions, companies and networks offer different parts of the package and students have the option of customizing their education. This has prompted much discussion on the advent of do-it-yourself education and a new educational ecosystem where the learner is free to choose the learning path that is most suitable. I have often written on this topic here and see many advantages with the unbundling process; enabling greater learner participation, widening access to education, offering more choice and greater flexibility.

Now even the notion of a course is being unbundled, as illustrated in an article by Jeffrey R Young in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Are Courses Outdated? MIT Considers Offering ‘Modules’ Instead. Noting that MOOCs work best when broken into short modules of 1-2 weeks, MIT are investigating offering a wide range of short modules that can be assembled by students into courses using a similar logic to the playlists we create for our online music. Both online and campus courses could be modularized according to the article and the benefits of this move are summarized as:
  • Students could retake any module they have trouble with before moving to the next concept in a sequence.
  • A modular approach would make it easier for professors to teach a course together, since faculty members could tackle a section rather than a whole course.
  • Updating a module when new information emerges is easier than redesigning an entire course.
Maybe this is not as revolutionary as it seems since a modular courses have been around for a long time. The difference today is the potential option to mix modules from different institutions though that would require the modules to conform to common quality criteria and for learners to be highly skilled in selecting suitable learning paths.

The problem with unbundling is that in the end it simply becomes too confusing to handle and the learner becomes paralyzed in an overwhelming abundance of choice. The pendulum starts then to swing towards rebundling; helping learners to make the right choices and find a path through the educational jungle. When choice becomes too complex we need someone who can help us to choose. This rebundling movement is introduced in an article in the latest edition of eCampus News, Unbundling and re-bundling in higher education.

... too few are thinking about how to help students make sense of and navigate this emerging, unbundled world and integrate the modular pieces together in ways that help them carve out a coherent and sensible life path. This is critical because it appears that in a personalized learning future, every single learner will have a custom fit educational pathway.

The movement could of course go full circle and the university will provide this rebundling but from a very different perspective from today's. Instead of offering everything under the same roof the future university will guide students to find personalised learning paths using courses or modules from a wide variety of sources, internal and external. If there are recognised quality criteria and metadata for all those resources it will be possible to put them together into a coherent path. The university's role will be as a guarantor of quality and provider of qualified tuition, guidance and mentorship.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Open and closed - students need to learn to handle both


Is there an inverse relation between the use of learning management systems (LMS) and social media in education? There does seem to be a certain conflict since they represent two very different types of learning environment for students. The LMS offers a secure all-inclusive enclosed arena with all services under one roof whereas social media offer a diverse, uncontrolled and highly personalised arena that the school/university has little influence over. The two would seem to be incompatible.

This question is discussed in an article by Michelle Pacansky-Brock, A Threat of Higher Ed's Love Affair with Closed-LMSs. She notes the paradox that the LMS culture is strongest in higher education, where you might expect more freedom and trust, whereas schools, who you would expect to strongly favour controlled environments, are in general more willing to experiment with social media. Schools are working much more with blogs, wikis, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many other social tools and there are numerous very active discussion groups for teachers on both Facebook and Google+. There are of course similar activities in higher education but I haven't found anything like as many. One concern is that by focusing on the protected LMS environment universities are not really preparing students for their future workplaces many of which are already driven by social media and where it is essential to know how to manage your digital identity and how to use social media responsibly.

One's digital footprint is an opportunity to do be one step ahead in life at graduation. And the continuous reliance on the closed-LMS environment continously constructs a mental model for faculty, instructional designers, administrators, all members of higher education that using social media is, in essence, the wrong thing to do. Moving forward, the mainstream use of closed LMS environments is creating yet another digital divide.

However I feel this simplifies the issue somewhat. While many companies use social media as an integral part of their operations they also have closed environments as well, such as project management tools and internal discussion boards. Students must learn to live in a digital working environment that mixes open and closed depending on the context. Most LMS today provide social media integration and students can move almost seamlessly between LMS functions and public tools and networks. The LMS is no longer the walled garden it is so often accused of being. As usual we shouldn't see this as an either/or issue but we have to learn to work in different environments using the best tools for each job. In an earlier post (LMS - from red giant to white dwarf?) I suggested that the LMS will evolve into a strong core service offering secure storage of student data, assessment and examination whilst discussion, reflection and collaboration take place outside the core in a variety of social media. Both in school and higher education students need to learn to handle both open and closed environments.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

True confessions - digital or analogue?

10:10:10 on 10/10/10 - ”Give Me A Little by Jill Clardy, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License  by Jill Clardy

I often get comments from colleagues that I must spend all my waking hours in front of a screen and do I ever have time for non-digital activities. While I admit to spending a considerable part of each day online and that the borderline between work and leisure time disappeared a long time ago, I thought I'd reveal just how analogue and retro I can be in certain circumstances. So here is my summer confession - I'm not as digital as I might seem.

BOOKS or MOOCs. I write a lot about MOOCs and am fascinated by the whole phenomenon which twists and turns every week. I've tested quite a few (actually completed one of them) and have written over 80 blog posts and several articles on the subject. However I must admit that I'm a book lover and have an ever-expanding library at home. I cannot contemplate not having at least one book on my bedside table and they are mostly non-fiction, generally history or nature. I learn a lot that way and am not prepared to sacrifice my book time to take a MOOC. Another factor that restricts my participation in MOOCs is that I spend so much time reading articles, writing blog posts and articles and engaging in online discussions that I feel I am participating in a never-ending personal MOOC so when I do sign up for a course it gets in the way of my normal work flow. Maybe I could be accused of not practicing what I preach but I like my own personal learning strategy and prefer it to the imposed schedule of a course.

E-books. I should say that books are books and whether they are on paper or on a screen matters very little but although I happily read both formats, there is a crucial difference in favour of paper that is based purely on my collector instinct and probably also a hint of vanity. I like to add a newly read book to my bookshelves (ie trophy cabinet) as evidence of my reading. There's still a certain status and satisfaction of having rows of crammed bookshelves and I can proudly claim to have read at least 90% of the contents. On the other hand no one notices your e-book collection, if indeed you can collect something as intangible. Admittedly this used to be equally true of the music collection that once occupied many shelves but has now completely disappeared into the cloud. Books may well go the same way but I still get great satisfaction out of owning a book rather than simply having access to one. Call me old-fashioned ...

Newspapers and magazines. One of my most important daily rituals is eating breakfast while reading the morning paper. I go through it from start to finish and read whatever seems interesting. Once breakfast is over I rarely look at the paper again. If for some reason there is no morning paper I'm rather lost. I check my iPad instead but it's not the same process. In the paper version I check all the headlines and often come across something interesting that I would never have clicked on in a digital version. I still subscribe to several print magazines each month and I read them from cover to cover (I even save them in long lines of boxes on the bookshelves!). I have cancelled a few subscriptions over the years with the intention of reading them on the net instead but that simply doesn't work. I even subscribed to a wonderful service called Readly which allows you unlimited access to a couple of hundred magazines for a monthly fee of about €10. I cancelled that when I realised I have ever used it. Somehow I have different reading strategies for print and digital formats; I skim/surf through digital content often in a non-linear manner whilst I read print from start to finish and tend to read more deeply. With digital content there are always exciting distractions just a click away whereas when I'm reading print copy those distractions are much further away. I realise there is no good reason why I shouldn't go digital but I don't, not yet anyway.

Tickets. Yes I still print out rail and air tickets and take them on my travels rather than use my mobile. I've tried using my mobile and of course it works but I don't completely trust the battery power of my mobile. If I have my tickets only on the mobile and the battery dies when I need to show the tickets what do I do then? A new mobile might be the answer but I still like to have the "real" tickets with me as a comfort.

I could probably add several more categories but the moral of the story is that we all adapt to the digital world in different ways and the presence of a digital solution does not always mean the end of the "analogue" version. We all find our own mix and that applies both in our private lives and in education. I wish we could move away from pointless arguments about whether digital is better than print, e-learning better than classroom and so on and instead focus on how technology is creating new opportunities.

Monday, July 28, 2014

The trouble with acronyms

Alphabet miso. by revbean, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License  by revbean

Martin Weller has written a timely post wondering why we don't talk so much about PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) today compared with a couple of years ago, Why don’t we talk about PLEs anymore. PLE is all about using your own mix of digital tools (blogs, wikis, Twitter, Diigo, RSS-readers, Facebook, Flickr etc) rather than pre-packaged learning management systems like Moodle or Blackboard (also known as VLE or LMS!). Weller features a Google Trends graph showing a fall and then levelling off in search results for PLE over the last couple of years and speculates on possible reasons for this trend.

"...  you could argue that the PLE was a success, it made itself redundant as a term, which illustrates it reached penetration. For others you could argue it was maybe a case of academics inventing something that wasn’t really there. For me, I found it a useful way to think about these new tools and moving away from pre-packaged solutions, but that’s become second nature now."

There is of course still considerable discussion and research among the PLE community (see especially this year's PLE conference in Tallinn) but one reason for the fall off in PLE discussion could be that, like many other interesting edtech concepts, it has probably drowned in a sea of MOOCs. Although many students (but far from all) already use PLEs without knowing that there is a name for their practice, a large proportion of educators have simply not discovered the concept yet and are still grappling with trying to use the traditional learning management system in a meaningful way. I think that the term PLE has simply not moved out of the innermost circle of pioneers whereas the general concept is more widely used but without the acronym.

The trouble with acronyms is that they exclude, giving an unnecessarily complicated name to an often relatively simple concept. Whenever we start talking about PLE, VLE, LMS, MOOC etc we automatically alienate the people we would really like to influence. It all sounds far too technical and all those acronyms simply blur into each other. My own completely unscientific hunch is that when an acronym fades into obscurity only then can the concept become mainstream. As long as a concept is still in development and in the laboratory stage then it probably needs a snappy acronym but once it becomes common practice it's time to move away from the alphabet soup.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Texting is still king


Despite the wide range of engaging social media available today it never ceases to amaze me that the undisputed king of communication in the net is the humble text message (SMS Short Message service) of 160 characters. It originally emerged as a signalling service in the 2nd generation mobile telephone system GSM in the early 1990s, used at first only for telling you that there was a voicemail message waiting for you. Given its limitations (160 characters, text only, low priority in the network, no guarantee of immediate delivery etc) its rise to fame was largely accidental. The idea of using it to communicate developed because mobile calls were expensive whereas texting was, at least in some countries, much cheaper. The rest is history but it's an excellent case of a service that became successful by accident. No company foresaw its popularity. Later the MMS was developed allowing you to send photos but it never took off in the same way.

Even today, despite the impressive numbers produced by Facebook and Twitter, the SMS is still the choice communication method of young people who weren't even born when the service first took off. An article in The Atlantic, The Most Popular Social Network for Young People? Texting, shows the results of a recent survey of young people's media habits and all social media are in the shadow of texting. Classic voice telephony is now relegated to being an optional extra.

So why does texting still beat Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all the others?
  • Firstly and most importantly it's not owned by a company and you don't have to sign up for it. No company owns the messages you send and they're not searchable. 
  • Texting is available to all regardless of device, model, network etc. No updates, incompatible versions etc.
  • Texting works everywhere with mobile coverage.
  • In today's incomprehensible telecoms market unblimited texting is usually thrown into every deal and that adds to the attraction.
A further factor is the "good enough" concept. Successful services often have lower quality than competitors but due to their simplicity they are considered good enough. Listening to music as mp3 files is not particularly uplifting in terms of audio quality but the format wins in terms of its versatility and universitality. Texting has no bells or whistles, no fireworks or wow factor - it's simply good enough.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Passport for learning

Let’s Go! - Passport by LucasTheExperience, on Flickr
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License by LucasTheExperience

The holy grail of open learning at the moment is finding a sustainable and reliable model for the validation of non-traditional learning (open courses, MOOCs, practical work experience, self-tuition etc). These forms of learning may be openly documented but have little or no formal credibility when applying to study at a university or applying for a job. Universities and employers have generally little knowledge of open learning and are naturally suspicious of the credibility of previously unknown certifications. Recognition of prior learning is of course relatively established in most universities but it is often a time-consuming and costly process that is more the exception than the rule. How can we help institutions to recognize open learning without making the task too cumbersome?

One interesting model is being tested in the project VM-Pass which aims to implement the recognition of virtual mobility and OER-learning through a learning passport. The idea is that a learner has a digital learning passport (like an e-portfolio if you like) with certificates from all the open courses they have completed as well as MOOCs and in-company training. This is similar to the badges backpack that Mozillas Open Badges concept uses where all your digital certificates are included in the backpack/passport. The key to VM-Pass is the validation process that is based on combination of peer review and crowdsourcing. The passport contains information from the course provider on the certificate the learner has earned with transparent links to all criteria. In addition there is the learner's own profile. When the learner goes to a university and asks for them to recognize his/her certificates it is far too demanding for each institution to investigate every certificate. Instead VM-Pass propose a clearinghouse solution where participating institutions can store their validations of open learning certificates. An administrator can look in the database and see if any other institution has validated the certificate in question. If there is already an entry then a good deal of the job is done, if not then the full validation process must be carried out. However if that process is documented in the system the next institution to query that certificate will not need to check so thoroughly.

These activities together will provide recognition offices a tool which will reduce the bureaucracy involved in recognition processes, allow them to share experiences with peers and compare their recognition decisions’ with other institutions – thus promoting harmonisation of recognition. All of this together, should make it easier for students to have their VM learning recognised, and thus increase the volume of students taking advantage of this flexible learning pathway, without increasing the administrative burden on their home institutions.

The major barrier here is getting universities to actually consider recognising open learning and using such a clearinghouse. The project is at present recruiting willing test pilots in a living lab to see whether the solution is feasible. Clearly there are methods and tools for integrating informal and formal learning. As usual the technology is not the problem. Changing attitudes and traditions are much harder challenges.

Read the booklet Open learning recognition which provides a foundation to the VM-Pass model.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Time for nanodegrees?

Microscope Stage 2 by tncountryfan, on Flickr
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License by tncountryfan

Last year Sebastian Thrun, head of MOOC-consortium Udacity caused quite a stir by announcing that his company would be changing focus; leaving the higher education MOOC market and focusing on corporate training (see article). This change provoked a lot of "I told you so" rhetoric from the MOOC skeptics; evidence that the concept was not compatible with higher education. Now after a few quiet months Udacity are launching the concept of nanodegrees which offer highly practical MOOC-like training in cooperation with a number of high profile companies like AT&T. The MOOC format is still recognizable but the focus is on helping learners get necessary work-related skills to make themselves more attractive to employers. The nanodegrees will take 6-12 months to complete depending on the pace the learner chooses. As described on the Udacity blogAnnouncing nanodegrees: a new type of credential for a modern workforce:

We are designing nanodegrees as the most compact and relevant curriculum to qualify you for a job. The sole goal is to help students advance their career: whether it’s landing their next job, their next project, or their next promotion. It should take a working student about 6-12 months to complete without having to take time off. We will teach all the necessary skills together with why those skills matter along with career guidance. In other words, you won’t just learn *how* to code, but also *why.*

The first courses have just been announced and you can already sign up to receive further information as it becomes available: Front-end web developer, iOS developer, Back-end web developer and Data analyst. I'm not sure what sort of business model they have in mind but I can imagine that there will be the familiar layered approach already used in higher education MOOCs; free to participate but tuition, assessment and credentials at a fee. It's interesting that although these nanodegrees will have no academic validity they have chosen an academic name for the concept. If there are no university credits involved why use the term degree? Academics may object to the concept on the grounds that a degree involves long-term in-depth study and that if you shorten this process as radically as Udacity do it cannot be called a degree. It's like calling a 5 km race a nanomarathon. Let's see how the debate goes.

The big question is whether employers will accept new credentials like these nanodegrees or similar initiatives. It would be interesting to see if Udacity would consider using Open Badges in their forthcoming courses since that would give added impetus to the initiative. They have been working closely with some major companies who plan to offer internships to selected nanodegree students but the crunch will come when such qualifications square up to regular degree certificate on a candidate's CV.

The validity of open learning is questioned in an article in the Guardian, Will a degree made up of Moocs ever be worth the paper it's written on? and the main criticism of open learning here is that it lacks the dialogue and personal contacts between teacher and student that occur on a campus programme. Here I think there is a danger of over-estimating campus education. Many universities have extremely large undergraduate courses and quality interaction with a faculty member can be as minimal as on many MOOCs just as there are many examples of online courses with extensive teacher-student interaction. Education at scale is not feasible on campus but is clearly possible online and the fascinating side of the MOOC movement is how different actors are trying to find ways of providing interaction, assessment and feedback. A degree (or even nanodegree) made up of MOOCs can and probably will be worth the digital badge it's written on but may not be equivalent to a full-time campus degree. It's not a matter of either ... or ... but different qualifications for different needs and target groups.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Norwegian MOOC commission


Norway became the first country in the world to appoint a government commission to examine the potential of MOOCs from a national perspective. In June 2013 the Ministry of Education appointed a committee of academics and educational experts to investigate the opportunities and challenges that the rapid growth of MOOCs pose to Norwegian higher education. The commission has now (16 June) presented its first full report and since it is at present only available in Norwegian it might be of interest to the rest of the world to get an overview of the conclusions (read the Norwegian version).

The commission defines MOOCs in very loose terms; online, scalable and open. As often mentioned every letter in the acronym MOOC is negotiable and the report does not restrict itself to any particular variation on the MOOC concept. This can cause confusion since the divisions between MOOCs, other forms of open education and regular e-learning often get blurred but the commission decided to cover all forms of the concept. The focus is however mostly on the high profile xMOOC interpretations of Coursera, edX etc rather than on the more undercover collaborative MOOCs offered by networks of teachers.

The report comes quickly to the point providing its main recommendations in chapter 3 with all the hard data and background coming afterwards. The recommendations are divided into two areas.

Main recommendations at government level:
  • A major national investment of up to €16-47 million annually in the coordinated development of online education in the country. This includes the formation of at least one national MOOC platform, research-based competence and knowledge development, cooperation between higher education and industry in using MOOCs for work-related training and research into learning analytics.
  • Create a clear Norwegian MOOC profile and cooperate in the Nordic region.
  • Active promotion of open educational resources (OER).
  • MOOCs that lead to credits should be included in the national educational system.
  • Focus on raising the quality of online higher education and competence development for teachers.
  • Questions about online examination security must be resolved.
  • A national review of validation of informal learning and workplace experience.
  • An inquiry on whether MOOC students should qualify for study loans and grants.
  • The establishment of financial incentives for collaboration between universities in the development of online education.
Main recommendations at institutional level:
  • The wide experience of quality online learning that is already present in the country’s institutions should be the base for any MOOC initiatives.
  • Institutions need to invest in digital competence development for all staff.
  • Institutions actively promote the use and creation of open educational resources.
  • Improved routines and opportunities for recognition of prior learning and competences.
  • Institutions should use MOOCs to leverage national and international collaboration.
To support these conclusions the commission then makes a chapter by chapter analysis of the following topics:
  • MOOCs in society (background, relevance, international and Norwegian contexts)
  • From flexible education to MOOCs (online learning history)
  • Evolution of MOOCs
  • MOOC participants and their motivation
  • Documentation of achieved competence
  • MOOCs in Norwegian higher education
  • Quality and learning outcomes
  • MOOC delivery forms
  • Copyright issues and openness
  • Workplace learning
  • Continuing education
  • Discussion on the interpretation of “free”
  • Government study grants and funding
  • Financial consequences of the commission’s proposals
The report gives a thorough and balanced analysis of the international development of MOOCs and acknowledges that MOOCs are only part of a wider development of open education and online learning. The background is well documented and happily also includes the origins of the term in the connectivist courses (cMOOCs) developed and still run by pioneers like George Siemens, Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier, David Wiley, Bryan Alexander and many more. They also take into consideration the fact that there is no clear standard MOOC model and that even within the major consortia like Coursera there is considerable variation in pedagogy, student interaction, assessment and structure. They have not fallen into the trap of simply looking at the mainstream hype but point to how MOOCs have opened people's eyes to the future role of online learning in all educational sectors. The positive effect of the MOOC hype has been that it has pushed a discussion of online learning on to the agendas of top management. Norway (and several other European countries) differs from leading MOOC nations like the USA in that higher education is free and not subject to high fees. Due to this the report feels that MOOCs will affect Norwegian higher education in different ways than in the USA and England. The accessibility of global MOOCs will stimulate Norwegian institutions to improve their own online courses and this quality focus will naturally also improve campus programmes. National and international collaboration will be another positive result of the opening up of education that MOOCs have been the catalyst for. However none of this will happen without strategic funding, incentives and strategies.

One aspect that is not covered here is that there are many examples of open online learning that don't (often deliberately) call themselves MOOC but share many common characteristics. The OER university partnership is mentioned but maybe deserves more attention since it attempts to provide a framework for offering credible credentials for non-formal and informal learning. A Norwegian member of the partnership would be a significant move to legitimize open learning in Norway for example. I have not found any mention of other open learning platforms like P2PU (Peer 2 Peer university) who have been facilitating MOOC-like collaborative learning for several years as well as platforms like Udemy that allow teachers and specialists to create and market their own courses. However a report cannot cover everything and the important point about this one is that it has been produced at governmental level, showing clearly that open learning has at last reached the corridors of power.

An English version of the report is promised in the near future.