Saturday, March 28, 2015

Learners or consumers?

Watch (328) by Doug Waldron, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License  by Doug Waldron on Flickr

Fifty years ago encyclopedia salesmen came to your door offering you the chance to ensure your child's future by buying their splendidly illustrated ten-volume encyclopedia. Many parents dutifully signed up for these offers and proudly placed the volumes in pride of place in the living room bookshelf, hoping that this goldmine of knowledge would give their children an advantage in school. However simply having access to content, no matter how well-produced, does not of course lead to learning. The content is a good starting point and inspiration but learning requires action, testing, discussing, failing and trying again.

Today we all have easy access to quality educational content through a myriad of channels, from mainstream broadcast media to MOOCs and open courseware. Enormous amounts of money are spent on content creation and we seem to still be locked into the traditional view of education as the transfer of information. If we agree that learning is social and requires active experimentation, creation and collaboration we should be investing more in ways to promote these processes rather than focusing so much on content delivery.

Do we want students to be consumers of content or independent learners? That is the question posed in an interesting article by Mark Surman, executive director of the Mozilla Foundation for the upcoming conference eLearning Africa 2015, Digital society at a crossroads: Do we want learners or consumers? He sees the danger of Africans becoming dependent consumers of western content and calls for more focus on adapting content to local conditions and helping people to create their own tools and services.

We are at a crossroads as to choosing what we want the digital society to be. That is either something that empowers and educates people or it’s something where people become consumers. In Africa in particular where people become consumers of products offered only or primarily by foreign companies.

The article gives examples of African initiatives to promote digital creativity by providing tools for people to build their own apps and web services but the main message is a global one; how do we move the use of technology away from simple consumption to learning and creativity? The first stage of digital literacy is learning to search and access content but for many people that's as far as it goes. We need to focus more on higher levels of digital literacy; how to exploit the power of the net to learn, create, produce and remix.

We need to build a tidal wave of people who in a really practical, business-oriented way can have an impact on the future of the web, on what the web becomes. What can industry do, what can governments do to creatively look at how every African can fully understand the power of the web and use it to make their lives and societies better?

Learning happens when you move from content to creation and collaboration.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Netflix and education

Ich glotz TV. by reflexer, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License  by reflexer

Can parallels be drawn between the development of television, from scheduled broadcasting to on-demand streaming, and the movement in education from traditional campus-based studies to unbundled online courses including MOOCs? Donald Clark raises this question in a post, What does ‘learning’ have to learn from Netflix?

Netflix is in 50 countries and will go into 200 within two years. We badly need some big, global education content delivery. Brilliant, scalable content that teachers and learners love. MOOCs are getting there, showing what can be done but still far too long and over-scheduled (semester-long courses were never the real demand, just a feature of the old, supply model). We need subscriptions in the tens then hundreds of millions (Netflix has 57 million but growing exponentially). Education needs a Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter or Netflix. I’m tired of the corner-shop mentality, the attitude that teaching and learning has nothing ‘essential’ that can’t be scaled.

"Television is dead, long live television" sums up the situation rather well. Many people today have almost abandoned scheduled broadcast TV for streaming services like Netflix where content is available on-demand and on any device. Netflix, like many other successful services, uses customer data to adapt delivery to suit individual preferences and offer an increasingly personalised product. The analogy is that the same algorithm-based technology could be successfully implemented to deliver personalised educational content, as promised by the field of learning analytics. Clark sees this as a wake-up call to higher education to start fully exploiting the opportunities offered by technology.

Some kind of educational Netflix is not completely new. Apples iTunes U could be seen as a prototype still in development, offering almost a million lectures from thousands of universities on demand and on most devices. Add learning analytics, which I suspect Apple are already working on, and you get just that kind of customised service that offers new bite-sized modules related to what you're studying. I'm sure that the delivery of educational content will move strongly in the direction described by Clark but it is still a broadcast model, no matter how personalised and on-demand it may seem to be. Who produces this content and what view of the world do they wish their content to reflect? Which content can we trust and how can we ensure that the material reflects global and multi-cultural perspectives. The risk is that this market is cornered by dominant western corporations.

Delivering content at scale and adapting it to personal preferences is the easy part really. It's what you do with that content that leads to learning. You can consume tons of content without necessarily becoming much wiser. You need to be able to put it all into context and draw conclusions and this generally needs guidance and a community to discuss with. You also need someone to break the personalisation bubble and force you to watch or read something that conflicts with your own views. The problem with personalised services like Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and Google is they want to keep you happy rather than challenging you. The adaptive Netflix model of content delivery is on its way I'm sure but even if it's an exciting development I'm not sure it really contributes to education. It's still completely top-down and controlled by a big corporation.

The danger for me is that this content is still locked down by copyright. It would be far more valuable to education if all this content is openly licensed and can then be adapted, translated and remixed by local educators to be more relevant to local learners. What we really need is a dynamic, global educational cloud where content is constantly being created, adapted and shared and is available anywhere and on any device.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Flipping the webinar

Most of the time we can't see the wood for all the trees. I've been working for some time in different projects trying to make webinars more interactive and using various tools to extend the dialogue. These experiments have been mostly successful and I feel that the webinars I'm involved in are more interactive and creative than before but somehow one elephant has stayed firmly in the room - content. Nearly all webinars are centred around the delivery of content and even if we now chop that delivery into bite-sized modules with discussion in between, content delivery still dominates the session.

So why not deliver the content before the webinar and focus on questions and discussion instead? This is the basis of an interview with Michael Kolowich, CEO of KnowledgeVision SystemsFlipping the Webinar – Advanced Tips from Industry Expert on Re-imagining Stale Webinars. We generally get the participants' attention 2-3 weeks in advance so why not make the content available immediately?

The schedule problem comes from the fact that when you find out about most webinars, they’re 2-3 weeks in the future. But as a marketer, you’ve got their attention now! Why not deliver the content now? Why make people wait three weeks? Chances are that no matter how well-intentioned a prospective webinar attendee is, some other meeting will come up in that time slot, and they won’t attend. 

Let participants focus on the presentation in their own time and then provide a channel for questions and reflections, for example a Facebook/Google+ group, a Twitter hashtag, a Padlet wall or a dedicated discussion forum. Then the focus of the webinar will be discussing the participants' questions and offering them more space to contribute. One advantage of providing pre-recorded content is presentation quality. In a live presentation there are many uncertain factors that can effect the delivery, often due to bandwidth issues. If you have over a hundred participants, slides tend to upload slowly and sound quality will fluctuate. Even the most experienced presenters can make mistakes and so delivery is often less than polished. However a recording can be made to higher standards, allowing several takes as well as the opportunity to edit. The recording will deliver the message in a more convincing and professional manner than the live performance.

It's time to test this I feel and will be interested in seeing the results. If it means that the webinar offers a deeper and more audience-oriented discussion rather than simple content transfer then all the better.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Educational change - a delicate balance

A couple of days after writing my last post on how higher education is slowly but surely adopting technology I discovered an article, Debunking the Myth about a Creative Destruction of Higher Education with Technology as the Driver, on the government of Ontario's Contact North site. It outlines the reasons why technology is not going to cause radical changes in higher education for some time and lists the main barriers to change. The barriers to change are mostly about traditional structures and these are extremely hard to influence unless a major external threat looms large. The main barriers are government funding of higher education, existing quality assurance, international rankings and faculty workload and conditions. All of these build on maintaining traditional structures and thus dampen all attempts at innovation and experimentation

No doubt others would point to a number of additional points, which act as inhibitors to the creative destruction and reinvention of our post-secondary system – the way in which faculty is rewarded and promoted, the way in which research funding is administered, preoccupation with time and so on. The key point is that such systems have built-in inhibitors to change which ensure that change is gradual not fast, deliberate not impulsive, mediated not mandated.

It would take a very brave and radical change in government policy and funding to change things and even if one country took such steps they would risk their universities falling in international rankings. So everyone watches and waits and few if any are making any radical moves at top level. The article points out that despite plenty media attention and commitment from those involved, there are few signs that open education, MOOCs, unbundling, competency-based assessment and so on are having serious effects on the fundamental core structures of higher education. If change is going to happen it will probably come from outside the system and present such a threat that the traditional system will be forced to adapt.

But do we really want this type of revolution and what type of educational system will emerge? The danger is that commercial interests will take over and many of the traditional values of academic freedom and scientific inquiry may suffer as a consequence. The system certainly needs to be tweaked towards greater flexibility and innovation but the danger with radical change is that you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Remember also that educational technology is just one of many challenges and that we're changing a whole ecosystem. Slowly but surely.

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Evolution not revolution

Evolution by j0sh (, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License  by j0sh (

Many of us who work with the use of technology in education get frustrated at the slow uptake of seemingly excellent tools and methods. We see the potential of open networked learning to empower and engage students as well as increasing collaboration, widening participation and fostering creativity and can't understand why our institutions are so slow to acknowledge and absorb these exciting developments.

A common complaint is that whilst so much of society has been changed radically by digital technology, universities look pretty well the same as they did ten/twenty/a hundred years ago (select time scale according to desired shock effect). I confess to having used this argument myself but it's worth taking a few moments to question our rhetoric now and then. Martin Weller does just this in a new post, The hidden tech shift in higher ed, describing how universities actually have changed over the last ten years. The student demographics have changed with many more older students who are studying online, part-time or not living on campus. Technology has actually become ubiquitous though maybe not as much as we would have hoped. Most courses today use learning management systems like Moodle, Blackboard etc and most students use their own devices to access their courses making the old computer labs almost extinct. Administrative procedures are now almost completely digital in many countries and even if the traditional written examination would seem to be the final bastion against digitalisation there are also many examples of digital examination as well as new methods for peer assessment and problem-based learning.

I still believe that there is a suspicion of technology in higher education and a reluctance to experiment but there are also significant structural barriers that we sometimes forget. Weller points to the barrier our classrooms and lecture halls place in the way of pedagogical innovation. Most universities are stuck with legacy architecture.

I think a real problem for higher ed is the legacy of the physical environment for example. We do lectures because we have lecture theatres. More significantly we can’t conceive of doing anything else because the lecture theatres says “do lectures”. It would be very difficult, for instance, to implement a flipped approach in many university courses because the face to face space is built for lecturing and not doing the other things you might want to utilize that time for.

Rebuilding and redesigning our learning spaces is an expensive business and not something that will happen overnight. However many universities are busy doing just that (my own university included) and there are many inspiring examples of new campuses and redesigned buildings that offer flexible, stimulating and technology-friendly learning environments.

Another structural barrier to digitalisation is the fact that teachers are paid for lecture hours in the classroom and when you're provided with lecture halls to meet the students it's no surprise that the lecture still dominates. Time spent on online support and tutoring is often not paid at the same rate as face-to-face lecturing. The administration has simply not adapted to seeing online teaching as being just as valid as classroom teaching and that helps to maintain the status quo. In addition many teachers feel over-stretched in terms of workload and there is simply no time for experimentation and learning new skills. When resources are limited as they often are in higher education there's little margin for experimentation and great pressure to simply effectivise existing activities.

Actually a lot has changed but maybe not as quickly as many of us would wish and maybe not in the right directions. Maybe we also need to realise that the issue of digitalisation is one of many intertwined issues facing education today and that there are no quick fixes. As I have written before it's about evolution not revolution.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Glocal MOOCs

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Similarly we can offer MOOC students discussion forums but we can't make them discuss. The topic of learner engagement in online courses (not just MOOCs) has been a recurring theme over the last twenty years and it's clear that meaningful discussions don't just happen, they need to be nurtured and managed. Simply providing a space to comment leads to either complete silence or streams of unconnected random comments ranging from supportive to abusive and distasteful.

In online education students are generally reluctant to participate in discussion forums unless there is a clear value in doing so. Discussions work when there is a limited number of participants who already have a sense of community and trust and where the purpose of discussion is clear to all. In a MOOC where there are thousands of participants the forums become crowded, disorganised and above all daunting for newcomers. A post on the site MOOC Lab, Why MOOC forums fail to deliver highlights another factor inhibiting MOOC forums:

The forums also tend to be dominated by a small group of avid participants, isolating the “masses” who feel too intimidated to join the conversation. The percentage of students registered on a course who participate in the forums is minute.

How can we create learning communities in a course with thousands of participants? One gigantic forum for all clearly doesn't work but it's also extremely difficult to herd participants into smaller discussion groups. That was tried with disastrous effects by Georgia Tech on their aborted course Fundamentals of Online Learning a couple of years ago. They tried to get participants to form smaller study groups; a noble plan but a case of trying to herd cats. Since then many other universities have been grappling with the same problem but rewarding discussion doesn't seem to scale.

David Hopkins (Learner engagement in MOOCssuggests designing MOOCs with a rolling schedule with a new group starting each week.

Instead of having a MOOC that runs twice a year with 10,000 learners each cohort, would it be better suited to run every week with 2-300 learners each week? The learners would progress with those other learners who started in the same time frame as them, therefore building more meaningful relationships with their fellow learners. 

This would avoid the chaos of mass forums but there is still the problem of organisation. It's hard enough running a standard 6 week MOOC but starting a new one each week would add to the university's costs and there is still the problem of how to foster meaningful discussion even in these smaller forums.  Someone has to manage the discussion. Someone has to lead the way, keep the discussion on track, encourage and question. Uncertain participants need to feel that their contributions are welcome and that it's safe to enter the discussion. Faculty are unlikely to have time to manage these discussions so maybe students could be recruited to do so. As long as there is someone who clearly manages and can establish trust among the participants.

What we're all searching for is a way to combine scale with intimacy. Can we design glocal MOOCs combining the advantages of education at scale with a sense of community and small group discussion? What sort of scaffolding and forum management can be provided without significant expense. Could local actors like further education colleges and libraries be involved in creating a local context to global courses? I'm sure it's possible but it will require opening up the MOOC concept outside the confines of the host university or consortium. Universities can't provide all the support themselves so why not open up the concept and allow others to contribute? MOOCs need an open API so that other actors can build support services, offer local variations, translate content and so on. Then maybe we can see open education really taking off.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Designing for MOOC accessibility

MOOCs attract large numbers of learners from all over the world and the vast majority of them are in English to cater for that global audience. However many participants are far from fluent in English and many others are unused to studying online. Clearly a major factor for not completing a MOOC is not having the language or study skills to keep up. Many of courses are challenging enough for native speakers so for non-native speakers to have a chance of keeping up with the pace there is a need for some language support. If we want to improve MOOC completion rates we need to provide scaffolding for these learners.

Stella Li writes about this in Inside Higher EdTranslating MOOCs, stating that the language barrier is one of the three most common reasons for Chinese students dropping out of a MOOC. Once they start the course they find the material simply too demanding; the spoken language in the video lectures is too fast and complex and the forum discussions are dauntingly full of confident English users. Those who are new to online education need clear instructions and information from the very start and need to feel welcome and safe in the new environment. The risk otherwise is that whenever they get stuck they will assume that they are not good enough for the course and disappear.

Many people register for a course not only to learn the subject but also to improve their English and this is a motivator that should be acknowledged more. MOOCs could therefore develop an interesting by-product if designed accordingly; as a medium for teaching English as a second language. Stella made a study of 20 MOOCs from a number of consortia and presents a number of course design strategies that would provide linguistic scaffolding for non-native speakers. One key factor is writing in plain English and avoiding idiomatic or over complex language, especially in the course description, instructions, guides and support information. Pre-course information should clearly explain how non-native speakers and learners with disabilities are catered for. There should always be alternative forms of accessing the content. Videos can easily be sub-titled in English allowing learners to both read and listen. Audio and video material can also have a downloadable text version as many will prefer to print out the text to read on the bus or train. Basically it's a matter of designing for accessibility.

So far studies have indicated that the majority of MOOC participants are graduates with good study skills but if universities are really interested in reaching beyond this group then accessibility must be top priority. Using plain English benefits everyone and even native speakers will appreciate subtitled videos and printable text versions of video and audio material. If MOOCs really want to contribute to lifelong learning for a global audience they must be designed with that diverse audience in mind rather than simply adopting the language and design principles of campus education.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Horizon Report 2015

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future, as the great baseball player and coach Yogi Berra is reputed to have said. However every year at the start of February New Media Consortium unveil the influential NMC Horizon Report on technology trends influencing higher education. Each year the eagerly awaited report features six trends, technologies and challenges and divides them according to an estimated time to implementation. This year's report has the following line-up:

Short-term: increased use of blended learning, redesigning learning spaces
Mid-term: measuring learning, proliferation of open educational resources
Long-term: advancing cultures of change and innovation, increasing cross-institution collaboration

: blending formal and informal learning, improving digital literacy
Difficult: personalised learning, teaching complex thinking
Wicked: rewards for teaching, competing models of education

Short-term: flipped classroom, bring your own device
Mid-term: makerspace, wearable technology
Long-term: internet of things, adaptive learning technologies

Most of these trends are no surprise to anyone involved in e-learning and regular readers of the report recognize some issues that have been on the list for many years, always just around the corner but never quite going mainstream. Concepts like flipped classroom, blended learning and open educational resources do not seem particularly new but I think the justification for including them is that they will finally move from being pioneer projects to full acceptance. The influence of the digital revolution on education does not move in a predictable linear progression but comes in fits and starts with a number of Gartner hype cycles all intertwining with each other. As a result trends that seem to be on the near horizon suddenly appear further away and other ones can suddenly appear right in the foreground from nowhere. A bit like quantum physics ...

However for me the report has two very important roles. Firstly it's a solid report that can be used to influence decision-makers, outlining clearly the key challenges for universities in the next 5-10 years without being too unwieldy. It can be read in under an hour and provides a good foundation for strategic discussions. Secondly I appreciate all the references to current projects and initiatives in each of the fields covered. Each year I discover real pearls in these lists that can be used to inspire others. I haven't clicked on all the links yet (and maybe never will) but here are some excellent take-aways from this year's report:
  • Competency-Based Education Network - A network of 33 US universities working in the growing field of competency-based education - recognising workplace skills and combining academic and professional education. 
  • Code of practice for learning analytics (JISC) - As the field of learning analytics finally begins to mature many institutions are concerned about student data being in the hands of commercial interests. This handbook from JISC provides a sound foundation on the legal and ethical questions involved.
  • Blended Synchronous Learning Handbook - Result of a recent Australian project investigating how web-conferencing and virtual worlds can be used to unite campus and online students.
  • Learning Space Rating System - The development of flexible and creative physical learning spaces is very much in focus as many universities consider redesigning their campus. This is a set of criteria for assessing how well your classrooms facilitate active learning activities.
  • ePortfolios & Open Badges Maturity Matrix - Result of a recent European project ( that provides criteria for assessing the maturity and validity of inplementing e-portfolois and badges in an institution.
The trends and challenges are of course essential reading but it's the practical examples that make it worthwhile. 

Photo: CC BY Some rights reserved. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Breaking up is hard to do

sas-ipad by zandwacht, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License  by zandwacht

Tradition is a powerful factor in slowing the uptake of new methods and tools in education. It's hard to say goodbye to old trusted friends and even if new solutions are clearly more effective we simply have invested too much time and effort in the old ones to let go without a struggle. This is especially true with services like e-mail which is so ingrained into almost all workplaces as the default method of communication that we keep on using and abusing it even when more effective and communicative solutions appear. The benefits of new solutions are often only evident when the old one has been fully replaced and running two rival solutions in parallel is simply ineffective. But making the clean break with tradition is traumatic.

The same is true with another old friend (or enemy for some) the pdf file. Pdf is the format of choice in most scientific publications and remains firmly entrenched despite its age (been around for 24 years!) and limitations. Once an article is in pdf format it is trapped in a format that cannot be changed and which denies peers the opportunity to comment and review. In addition pdf is a proprietary format that requires users to download a reader and this can be a barrier to many. Ijad Madisch makes a plea for change in a Guardian article, Researchers: it's time to ditch the PDF.

The PDF is the digital equivalent to the desk drawer – a place where scientific results are hard to find and easily forgotten. And yet the PDF is still the default way for scholarly publishers to disseminate research on the web.

There are many much more attractive and flexible reading formats available that could allow readers the opportunity to engage with the author but once again I think tradition is the main factor for the pdf's longevity.

The solution is to embed research results into their natural – their social – context. Publications are only small snippets of a researcher’s knowledge. To get the full story you need to connect with the researcher. This way, authors get feedback on their work and readers an idea of its impact.

Proprietary formats like pdf have become so accepted that more open alternatives struggle to gain acceptance despite clear advantages (above all not requiring users to download extra software). We continue to use pdf, Word, PowerPoint, e-mail simply because we always have. I don't think there are necessarily any ulterior motives here except the power of tradition and the fact that breaking up is so hard to do.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Learning by degrees

Higher education is steeped in tradition and although many are fine and noble it's healthy to question even the most ingrained ones. Seventy years ago a university education was only possible for a relatively small section of the population and many of those who got a degree went on to an academic research career. It was essential therefore to make sure that 3rd and 4th year students were well grounded in research methods and degrees were designed to lead students towards research. Today, when in many countries over 50% of the population study at university level, this structure is clearly inappropriate and maybe it's time for change.

One radical change is suggested by David Colquhoun in the Guardian, Honours degrees aren't for all – some unis should only teach two-year courses. Offer shorter first degrees taken at a more intensive pace (similar to secondary school) and then have specialist research universities to offer more advanced levels of study. Many students today study at unnecessarily advanced levels and maybe it's better to get a grounding in two years, start working and then top up with more advanced courses as they become necessary.

I believe that all first degrees should be ordinary degrees, similar to those offered by US liberal arts colleges, and these should be less specialist than what is now offered. Some institutions should specialise in teaching such degrees, others should become predominantly postgraduate institutions and have the time, money and expertise to do proper advanced teaching.

The division of higher education into teaching institutions who offer a wide range of ordinary degrees and research institutions offering advanced research-based education would certainly cause considerable uproar in the academic world since the role model of almost every university is the high status research university. However many claim that professional training has become too academic and needs to be more skills-oriented. Maybe it's time to question some traditions. Why must degrees take a certain amount of time? How can we shift the focus from knowledge to skills? How can we integrate education and the workplace? How can we allow people to gain their qualifications without having to move from their home area (combating the brain drain in remote areas)? How can we make it easy for people to retrain, switch career focus and develop their professional competence?

Many current educational trends like MOOCs, open educational resources, competency-based degrees, peer learning and nanodegrees should be seen as part of a quest to find new models and structures for learning and education. Models are constantly being tested; some will succeed, some will fail and some will be reworked and evolve into something new. The idea of two year degrees should not be simply dismissed. It doesn't need to change the system completely but maybe some alternative structures are necessary. We need more people to start asking "What if ...?"

Monday, February 2, 2015

Giving credit

pelotón de fusilamiento by kinojam, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License  by kinojam on Flickr

We live in the age of ubiquitous photography. I remember the days when I wondered if I should take one or two film rolls with me on holiday and the cost of developing 50 photos was considerable. Today I just snap everything I see and come home with hundreds of photos, some of which are quite good. An astounding amount of photos are stored and publicly shared in various cloud repositories like Flickr or Picasa and once there they can then be shared and reused by thousands. Once your photos are out there they develop a life of their own and you no longer control your creations.

In a world full of mashups and remixes we borrow from a wide range of sources and create new works. However it is seldom you see the original creators getting any credit and although the practice doesn't result in a copyright lawsuit it would be only fair to give credit to those who have inspired you. Professional photographers are generally good at protecting their work and being explicit about rights but the hordes of good but not professional photographers are often less careful and their work is then reused without credit. Putting a Creative Commons license on your work makes it clear how you would like your work to be used and always demands that reusers clearly credit the owner of the work and link back to the original. The problem is that people need help to give credit in the right way and that's where new tools are needed.

A new service called is hoping to help people acknowledge their sources. has been started by a Swedish guy called Jonas Öberg, who describes himself as "a technologist, teacher, software developer, project manager, non-profit serial entrepreneur, husband and father."The service that allows you to search for the source of any photo you find on the net and generates a ready format for acknowledging that source. The aim is to encourage a sharing culture where credit is freely given to people who are willing to share their work. This should be common practice in schools and universities where citing text sources is obligatory academic practice but where photos are often used without credit, especially in PowerPoint presentations. But it's not just about giving credit. hopes to help build a community of photographers and offer a community service where everyone contributes and benefits. Since it's an open source solution the field is open for new add-ons and developments.

This isn't limited to photographs: knowing who authored something is essential to be able to give credit to that person. In school, we've come to learn and appreciate the need to cite our sources, to give reference and credit to the authors whose work we use. When others cite you and give credit to you, they help you build your reputation, something that's vital if you are to succeed with your ambitions, whether you're a budding writer, journalist, photographer or scientist.

At present the app is available for Chrome and Firefox. The service is still in its early stages and although the present volume of photos covered by is considerable it needs money to keep expanding. That's why they have started as a crowd-funding project so you're welcome to donate to the cause. Here's the introduction film to give you an idea of what Elog-io has to offer.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Making feedback more personal

My New Podcasting Workspace by Brad.K, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License  by Brad.K

Online education is often accused of being impersonal self-study with predominantly text-based communication that lacks the intimacy of meeting teachers and fellow students face-to-face. The discussion forums of many courses are indeed rather impersonal with many students and teachers opting not to show photos of themselves. The teacher may provide recorded lectures but generally there is very little personal contact in such environments; face-to-face contact is missing and students seldom hear the teacher addressing them directly. As a result it is extremely difficult to foster a sense of community and when interaction is limited and relatively impersonal it is no surprise that many learners simply give up or slowly fade from view. As low bandwidth has become less of an issue in recent years online learning should have been first to reap the benefits of synchronous and asynchronous audio and video communication to provide a more media-rich learning environment and enable more personal contact between students and teachers.

It is surprising therefore that we are only now beginning to exploit the use of audio and video in education. This is highlighted in an article by Steve Kolowich in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Could Video Feedback Replace the Red Pen? It describes how teachers are providing feedback on student assessments by posting short videos instead of commenting in text. The advantages of video feedback are many but above all it makes the teacher-student contact suddenly more personal, offering contact and empathy in a way that text can never convey. The article quotes student reactions to video feedback as overwhelmingly positive, claiming that the communication was real, honest and authentic in comparison with text feedback. The teacher addresses the student directly giving a few minutes of specific feedback and this can make the difference between the student opting out or staying the course. In addition teachers found it quicker and easier to make a video commentary with a mobile and any hesitations or repetition was seen by students as adding to the personal touch of the message.

Instructor feedback seems like a natural fit for video, especially because short videos have become easy for anyone to make and distribute. The Monash instructors, for example, recorded theirs with webcams and iPhones. And yet they found few documented cases of similar experiments in the research literature. Most studies have focused on videos directed at an entire class, they said, rather than ones tailored to individual students.

We should not simply focus on video either. Audio has many advantages and also offers a more personal contact than text. Recording an audio message is simple on any device and audio files can be easily embedded into a Word document or a PowerPoint slide enabling the teacher to give specific feedback on the student's work. Although it's good to see the teacher's face now and again it's often better to hear the voice while looking at the work being commented on. For students with bandwidth limitations audio feedback is not demanding and provides that direct contact between teacher and student that text fails to provide. The British organisation JISC's guide, Using Audio Feedback for Assessment, provides good advice on using audio feedback with students. They have also produced a specific guide to adding audio comments to a Word document.

Some research into the effects of student feedback on their development has brought up themes of staff effort gone to waste and students not digesting feedback, therefore hindering their development (Hartley and Skelton, 2002). As a result numerous case studies have investigated the potential for successful audio feedback to be an improvement on written feedback in the perception of students and assessors.

Audio and video can also transform the discussion forum offering students a choice in how they contribute. It also increases accessibility for students with impaired sight or dyslexia many of whom will feel much more comfortable making an audio comment than writing text. I know several teachers who use the tool VoiceThread to create discussion threads with a combination of video, audio and text communication and this gives a real voice and face to all participants who, on a more traditional online course, would never see of hear each other at all. Basically a variety of media makes a richer learning environment for all. Imaginative use of media for asynchronous communication can help to narrow the distance in online education. Soon the concept of face-to-face will not necessarily mean being in the same room. It can even be applied to asynchronous communication.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Soft skills are key to employment

The skills that employers value most are not the skills that tend to be examined and rewarded by universities. What employers are most interested in are soft skills such as teamwork, initiative, creativity, critical thinking and practical experience and these are all notoriously hard to quantify and examine within the traditional academic structure. This is further confirmed in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, College Students Think They’re Ready for the Work Force. Employers Aren’t So Sure. The article discusses the findings of a new report by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Falling short? College learning and career success, which is a survey of 400 employers and 613 students on how well students are prepared for employment. There is a clear mismatch between the expectations of employers and graduates' self-assessment especially when it comes to so-called soft skills that are seldom visible in academic certificates.

The students indicated that they felt qualified in areas like written and oral communication, critical and analytical thinking, and applying knowledge and skills to the real world. But employers consistently rated students lower than they rated themselves. For example, while 59 percent of students said they were well prepared to analyze and solve complex problems, just 24 percent of employers said they had found that to be true of recent college graduates. (Chronicle article)

It seems that employers are less interested in grades and formal credentials and want instead to see evidence of practical work experience and proficiency in soft skills. This does not mean that formal credentials are not relevant but that they come further down the list when compared to hands-on experience. According to the report the demand is for generalists rather than specialists:

... employers say that when hiring, they place the greatest value on demonstrated proficiency in skills and knowledge that cut across all majors. The learning outcomes they rate as most important include written and oral communication skills, teamwork skills, ethical decision-making, critical thinking, and the ability to apply knowledge in real-world settings. Indeed, most employers say that these cross-cutting skills are more important to an individual’s success at their company than his or her undergraduate major. (AACU report)

There are of course many university programmes which focus on problem-based learning, work experience, real-life projects, internships and so on but studies like these also highlight the need for credentials to be more granular and include evidence of soft skills. The use of skill badges to complement traditional credentials can be one way of rewarding students especially if they can be awarded by the organisation the student has worked with during studies. The growth in interest in competency-based degrees can also be seen as a response to employers' demands. A university education can thus include a variety of certificates/badges awarded mostly by the university but also by other organisations who have benefitted by the student's work. In this way we can make academic credentials more granular and the student will have references from several sources. 

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Are MOOCs really about rebranding?

Branded by derekGavey, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License  by derekGavey on Flickr

What's the difference between a MOOC and a regular online for-credit course? That's the question asked by David Wiley in a post entitled Koller, Thicke, and Noble: The “Blurred Lines” Between Traditional Online Courses and MOOCs. Most people would answer that scalability is the key feature of a MOOC with tens of thousands of participants signing up for the most popular courses. However there have been many massive online courses even before the four-letter acronym was invented, for example the popular summer math refresher course, Sommarmatte (site in Swedish), run by several Swedish universities for many years. Here hundreds of high school graduates refresh their math skills helped by student mentors in the sort of peer learning that many MOOCs are working with. So if scalability is nothing new what then is so special about MOOCs?

Wiley presents a long list of common features between MOOCs and online courses and concludes that the main difference is the type of platform:

The more I think about it, there seems to be only one practical difference between MOOCs and traditional online courses – the platform they are offered on. Online courses are offered via Blackboard and Canvas, while MOOCs are offered via Coursera and EdX.

In the traditional online course the focus is on the university and its faculty and the choice of platform is largely irrelevant for the students. In a MOOC, however. the platform has star billing.

In a traditional online course, the lead brand is the institution, followed by the faculty member, with little or no consideration for the LMS the course is offered in. (Have you ever seen an ad for a traditional online course that touted (or even mentioned) which LMS the course was offered in?)

By contrast, with MOOCs the lead brand is the LMS – you’re taking a course on Coursera! It happens to be offered by MIT. And there is probably a list of “Course Staff” buried at the bottom of the About the Course page.

Is the MOOC movement really about rebranding education? I don't see higher education being swallowed up by MOOC consortia but there are certainly concerns about who owns what and how the major consortia will be able to use their vast amounts of student data for future learning analytics applications. I don't see the present MOOC consortia as a threat and there is clearly an interest in the courses they provide. However, as I have written in several previous posts, there must be alternative paths available. It's perfectly possible for a university to go it alone and offer an open and scalable variant of an existing online course. Whether they label that as a MOOC or not is irrelevant, it's the openness that matters. Wiley sees the adoption of open licensing and the resultant sharing, reuse and adaptation of learning resources as the alternative path forward allowing greater access and improving quality through co-creation and peer review of resources and methods. MOOCs in their present form are simply one of many variations in online education. How we interpret the word open is the key issue to investigate in 2015.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Paths to openness

path path path by hockadilly, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License  by hockadilly on Flickr

Martin Weller's new book The battle for open provides an excellent overview of the role of openness in higher education today. It charts the development of the main strands of openness (open access, MOOCs, open educational resources and open scholarship) and suggests that although the MOOC boom has made people more aware of the opportunities of open online education it is a false dawn. Interpretations of openness vary greatly and most MOOCs choose to only focus on free access but maintain full copyright on the material. Major investments of venture capital underpin the mainstream MOOC movement and many academics are concerned about the commercialisation of higher education.

One might therefore expect this to be a time of celebration for the advocates of openness. Having fought so long for their message to be heard, they are now being actively courted by senior management for their experience and views on various open strategies. Open approaches are featured in the mainstream media. Millions of people are enhancing their learning through open resources and open courses. Put bluntly, it looks as though openness has won. And yet you would be hard pushed to find any signs of celebration amongst those original advocates. They are despondent about the reinterpretation of openness to mean ‘free’ or ‘online’ without some of the reuse liberties they had envisaged. Concerns are expressed about the commercial interests that are now using openness as a marketing tool. Doubts are raised regarding the benefits of some open models for developing nations or learners who require support. At this very moment of victory it seems that the narrative around openness is being usurped by others, and the consequences of this may not be very open at all.

Weller points to the Silicon Valley narrative that education is broken and that commercial solutions will reinvent the sector. It's an attractive and media-friendly argument that has won many supporters and I'll admit that I've been won over by many of the articles and videos that have gone viral in recent years. The image of a hopelessly outdated system based on dull lectures and exam halls and failing to exploit digital technology may have some truth in it but is still a sweeping generalisation that fails to acknowledge the advances made in online higher education in the past 15 years. The MOOC concept was after all developed by university faculty and researchers as pedagogical innovation, Silicon Valley latched on and adapted the idea several years later.

So with the spotlight still focused on mainstream MOOCs some of the really interesting develoments have been taking place in the shade. If we are at a crossroads in the development of openness with one road leading to commercialisation we also need to see an alternative route where resources and tools are shared openly with permission to reuse and remix. One possible avenue could be the new initiative Unizin which is a consortium of American universities whose aim is to take control of their own infrastructure, resources and tools and offer a non-commercial cloud-based platform for higher education, outside the influence of commercial actors. Many fear that by linking up with major corporations and venture capital sponsored MOOC consortia higher education may be selling its soul to big business. Unizin wants to create a common cloud repository for educational resources that can be freely shared. The main driving force behind this is the potential of learning analytics and if student data is kept within the educational domain then it can be analysed for educational purposes.

Our goals and purpose in endorsing Unizin are simple: As professors and members of the academy, we want to support faculty and universities by ensuring that universities and their faculty stay in control of the content, data, relationships, and reputations that we create. As we look at the rapidly emerging infrastructure that enables digital learning, we want to bias things in the direction of open standards, interoperability, and scale. Unizin is about tipping the table in favor of the academy by collectively owning (buying, developing, and connecting) the essential infrastructure that enables digital learning on our campuses and beyond.

In a similar vein the Finnish government has announced plans for a national cloud-based educational platform called EduCloud (information in Finnish only at present) which aims to house a national repository of open educational resources as well as common tools and services. There is no doubt that commercial actors will continue to offer innovative solutions for education but the path to true openness lies in the educational sector taking charge of their resources and services. But this path is not about each institution building its own solution but in national and international cooperation. Maybe this will be a major theme for 2015.