Instructional technology / distance education

Professors who dislike online learning are not Luddites (essay)

A recent article in The Economist, “Learned Luddites,” described liberal arts instructors who refused to adopt MOOCs as “Luddites,” a term made famous in the 19th century by English textile workers who were so paranoid that machinery would replace their jobs that they took to the task of physically destroying the machines they used. To conclude there is a connection between what the Luddites did and the arguments against online learning is reaching, if not absurd, and devalues the discussion happening in academic departments nation wide.

In America, after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the creation of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, emphasis was placed on math, science, and foreign language studies, as these three disciplines were deemed crucial to national security. Move forward 10 years and by the late 1960s one out of seven Americans was employed in the defense industry, military spending had risen from 1 percent to 10 percent of the gross domestic product, and corporations were increasingly profiting from an infusion of money from government contracts.

At the same time, high debt from domestic spending combined with outside competition from foreign markets was having an affect, and by the mid-1970s America had slipped into post-industrialism as jobs moved away from manufacturing toward more office based and service type employment opportunities.

The end result of shifting from assembly line to office tech, resulted in a college degree becoming a necessary component to a career, and as universities and community colleges began to accept more and more applicants, higher education began to trend course loads to part-time instructors.

Today, in 2013, a majority of those teaching in academia are working on a contingent basis. Tenure is nearly nonexistent, and liberal arts professors are being made to feel as though they are simply no more than an application, a helpmate, so to speak, that guides the student along as though they were a navigator steering a ship, following a mapped course not set by them, but by some far-off captain who serves as a default programmer for a higher purpose that is kept hush-hush until the time is right, a captain whose job it is to make sure the cargo arrives on time and without any scuffing from the occasional rogue wave.

At worst, more than a few professors feel they are becoming little more than a retention tool, a gimmick or novelty act whose entire future depends on whether or not one can “get with the program” of algorithmic evaluation, spreadsheet printouts, and constant barrage of software programs designed to make keeping track of grades easier, as if a pen and pad were inherently inferior, and all the while the academic is asked to maintain a classroom atmosphere that is not only educational but also so entertaining that even the most mind-numbing of subjects can compete against the fixative trance of the portable handheld device.

Ironically, the analog education one received before the Digital Age, an educational model that emphasized literature and writing, is admired for its fine attention to detail, as detail is considered to be hallmark of success. Yet that style of learning, though suitable for Fitzgerald and Stein, will not work in world where students are groomed as future customers and national security is commingled with corporate wants that drive the areas of study that schools find most lucrative.

It is pathetically sad to think that a classroom could be reduced to a rectangle screen on a distant wall, or thought to be comparable to that of a interior space where a qualified human stands as the moderator before eyes that are watching. A cold, sterile scene from Orwell's 1984 comes to mind in a world where the educator is 20 miles away and the students are considered close.

As a professor, I am not opposed to online teaching, but I do believe we are losing more than we are gaining from a technological hypnosis that has the potential to reclassify the teacher as a network administrator. I am not a lab rat, nor do I want the classroom considered a lab. Our culture is fascinated with language bewitchment and making the obvious appear novel. Yet at the end of the day the MOOC is still no more than a student interacting with a computer regardless how convenient or user friendly the experience has become.

If our embracing and use of technology becomes more important than our mission to teach, to meet in groups for discussion, or to sit one-on-one with a student seeking guidance, then not only should online education be critically evaluated for its unintended affects but also the very system itself that would interpret skepticism as a regress.

Brooks Kohler is an adjunct instructor with an M.A. in history.

Department of Education teases expansion of 'experimental sites'

Smart Title: 

At online learning conference, federal officials say Education Department will soon loosen regulations for institutions experimenting with new forms of assessment.

European educators consider how their MOOCs could compete with those from U.S.

Section: 
Smart Title: 

Could Europe outpace the U.S.? Many experts think the key is awarding credit.

American adults see online courses as at least equivalent in most ways

Smart Title: 

Gallup survey finds majority of adults see online courses as equal to or better than classroom-based courses in several key ways.

Rutgers U. graduate school faculty vote to block Pearson partnership

Section: 
Smart Title: 

Graduate faculty at Rutgers University at New Brunswick carve a section of the university out of a contract with Pearson, but administrators say the online program partnership will continue on track.

The Pulse podcast interview with Ken Hartman

Section: 
Smart Title: 

This month's edition of The Pulse podcast features an interview with Ken Hartman, a senior fellow at Eduventures and former president of Drexel University Online.

Survey finds board members lack knowledge but see big future for ed tech

Smart Title: 

Boards of trustees are spending more time debating how their institutions should invest in education technology, but many members say they feel unprepared to make those decisions.

Essay on efforts to address issues of skepticism about MOOCs

It’s only been about a year since massive open online courses (MOOCs) burst onto the higher education scene. But it hasn’t taken long in many quarters of our community for acclaim to accede to skepticism, and excitement about MOOCs to fade amid charges of excessive hype.

All of that’s understandable during such challenging times for American higher education, as presidents and professors alike grapple with issues of affordability, access and accountability. After all, no one innovation will ever be a cureall, no matter how much attention it gets.

This is a good time for all of us in higher education to take a step back and study the disruptive potential of MOOCs and other innovations. The American Council on Education, for instance, has an ongoing and wide-ranging research and evaluation effort to examine the academic potential of MOOCs and attempt to answer questions about whether they can help support degree completion, deepen college curriculums and increase learning productivity.

I was interested, therefore, in the findings of Inside Higher Ed’s new Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology. Over all, and perhaps to no one’s surprise, many faculty members expressed reservations about online courses in general and about MOOCs in particular. Several responses highlighted this skepticism, but also, I believe, showed where ACE’s work can be of assistance.

Just 22 percent of the faculty who responded to the survey agreed that "higher education should award credit for MOOCs." However, 66 percent said that a very important indicator of a quality online course is whether it has been "independently certified for quality."

It has been well-publicized that one aspect of ACE’s MOOC evaluation and research initiative is to review some specific MOOCs for potential college credit recommendations. So far, in fact, we have determined that 11 such courses across three major MOOC platforms met criteria for credit recommendations: Five from Coursera, five from Udacity  and one from edX.

But what may be less well-known is that reviewing MOOCs for credit recommendations involves the same work ACE has been successfully undertaking for many years to evaluate learning that takes place outside traditional degree programs. And faculty should keep in mind that it is their colleagues who are responsible for carrying out these reviews.

Since 1945, ACE has evaluated military training and experiences to determine their eligibility for credit recommendations. In 1974, the ACE College Credit Recommendation Service (ACE CREDIT®) was formed to extend these reviews to the workplace and to major departments of government. Decisions about this and all transfer credit are up to individual institutions on a case-by-case basis, as they should be, but there is a network of some 2,000 institutions that have agreed to consider ACE credit recommendations.

Many of these courses are found in military and workplace settings, but they also have for a number of years included “traditional” online courses that now are more than a decade old.

Each course review is led by a team of at least two experienced and trained faculty assessors, drawn from a variety of institutions and geographic regions. Each faculty assessor's expertise is relevant to the course under review and all must have significant teaching experience. The reviewers look at textbooks and other instructional materials, course syllabuses, assessment methods, lab and class exercises, instructor qualifications and, for online courses, instructional design, assessments, student authentication and exam proctoring.

In the process of these rigorous reviews, it is not unusual for a faculty team to make recommendations for improvements to MOOCs and other types of courses.

The final recommendations are always a consensus of the team, and they are based on consistent standards that are national in scope and not linked to the standards of any one particular institution. It is up to ACE faculty reviewers to decide how much credit to recommend based on the scope and depth of the course, with decisions about whether to grant credit at the discretion of degree-granting institutions.

Final recommendations are published on ACE's online National Guide to College Credit for Workforce Training. Once approved for credit recommendations, courses must be re-reviewed every three years to maintain their status.

The promise of MOOCs remains an open question, but it’s clear that online learning overall will play an increasingly important role as the higher education community works to serve millions of adult learners and help our country meet the goal of boosting the number of Americans with a postsecondary degree, certificate or credential. About two-thirds of American college students now are post-traditional learners whose pursuit of additional knowledge and skill is interlaced with time commitments to jobs and family responsibilities.

The 2012 Survey of Online Learning by the Babson Survey Research Group  showed that more than 6.7 million students were taking at least one online course during the fall 2011 term, an increase of 570,000 from 2010, and that 32 percent of higher education students now take at least one course online. And while just 2.6 percent of our institutions reported currently having a MOOC, an additional 9.4 percent said that MOOCs were being planned.

ACE, of course, isn’t the only entity that can help assure faculty of the quality of online courses, including MOOCs. And it’s worth noting that ACE’s MOOC initiative is part of our broader push to expand the area of prior learning assessment in ways appropriate for both post-traditional students and American’s diverse system of colleges and universities.

Indeed, as my ACE colleague Cathy Sandeen recently noted, there are many ways to develop a more truly interconnected higher education system that helps more Americans complete postsecondary degrees, credentials and certificates.

Yes, MOOCs have received a lot of hype. But that just makes it all the more important to continue with efforts to assess where and how they might fit into the higher education landscape.

Molly Corbett Broad is president of the American Council on Education.

Section: 
Editorial Tags: 

EdX and Google to develop open-source MOOC platform

Section: 
Smart Title: 

MOOC provider edX finds a powerful partner in Google for its new platform, Open edX.

Essay on three key facts on distance education

I know! I know! Everyone is sick to death of debating the pros and cons of MOOCs, the massive online courses that, depending on your viewpoint, will be the downfall or resurrection of higher education. But what's getting lost in all the noise is that MOOCs are far from the only game in town when it comes to online education.

Key in determining the effectiveness of a course, both online and on the ground, is how actively it is being taught and how effectively it is engaging students.

Educators are creating and tweaking a number of very different learning models to engage students in "active learning," both in the physical classroom and the virtual world – often in intriguing combinations.

Based on innumerable conversations with faculty, students, administrators, staff, and the general public, the following are the three most important things I know about the role distance education plays in higher education today and about how to create high-quality programs.

Distance education is not a singular thing.

Educators and administrators often use only the terms "synchronous" and "asynchronous" to differentiate among distance education models.  But the most critical descriptor of distance education models has nothing to do with the extent of live instruction; rather, it is the extent to which a course is "actively taught."

On one side of the active-teaching spectrum is a "course-in-a-box" -- a course with pre-built media assets meant to stand alone, with minimal or no involvement or intervention by the faculty.  MOOCs, for instance, often consist of pre-recorded high-production video and automated assessments. If the faculty member were to disappear or otherwise disengage from the course, the course would still exist. The thousands of students in the MOOC could simply press the play button on the screen, answer automatically graded test questions and otherwise enter input as appropriate. And, of course, the size of the MOOC is nearly limitless, subject only to technology capacity constraints.  

On the other side of this spectrum is the very actively taught class.  Independent of media assets available to students, faculty teach.  They communicate with students, lead discussion, provide feedback, and otherwise engage.  If a faculty member were to stop teaching, the class would cease to exist. Typically, such actively taught courses are smaller and require that faculty know and interact with students much more intimately, more like a seminar than a lecture hall.

Some MOOCs employ teaching assistants, striving for modest interaction with students. However, in most cases, the scale of MOOCs overwhelms even multiple instructors; plus, TAs are, by definition, not faculty. Thus, while MOOCs may be great for personal enrichment, most are not yet appropriate for college credit, given that they are largely unresponsive to the learning needs of any given student.

The questions being asked about effective distance education aren’t all that different from those concerning "traditional" teaching models.

Just as with traditional education, one the greatest challenges of distance education is how to better engage students. Traditional educators often discuss the role of lecture, discussion, feedback, group projects and peer assessment.  Today they also talk about "flipping the classroom" so that lectures and other didactic material are recorded and made available to students outside of class. Class time can then be reserved for discussion and application.

Understanding that student engagement is highly correlated to active teaching, distance educators are addressing the very same issues.  The "course in a box" model is rarely engaging - many MOOCs create very passive experiences for students, who are required to watch hours of video and answer machine-graded multiple choice questions.

That said, some "course in a box" exceptions come close to rivaling substantive live interactions. Simulations, games, and other online modules in which students must solve problems and make decisions within an automated environment can be very effective teaching tools that adapt to students’ varying levels of skill and mastery. Fully adaptive learning technologies may, in fact, be more engaging than traditional teaching, given that students’ learning experiences may be customized to individual needs.

Of course, not even all traditional education is "active." A professor’s recitation of pre-written 75-minute lectures twice a week for an entire term would hardly be more active than simply recording those lectures and posting them on a website. An actively taught traditional course, like a distance education course, would require the faculty member to engage much more intimately with students through discussion, feedback, and more.

While some asynchronous models have no active teaching element -- including many MOOCs -- others rely on highly active and present faculty to asynchronously engage with students. Asynchronous communications, including group discussion boards, blogs, and wikis, can lead to more substantive exploration of course material than live, in-person conversations. Some faculty report that asynchronous communications allow students to better digest and consider others’ opinions while constructing their own beliefs, and can lead to deeper and more robust discussions.

Putting aside the aforementioned adaptive and interactive learning technologies (which are still relatively rare), an active teacher can better understand the needs of each student and differentiate instruction, customizing discussion and explanations as appropriate. Non-active teaching -- whether through distance or traditional education -- tends to be inflexible and monolithic.

Faculty conversations about distance education are shifting markedly.

Faculty today are less interested in debating the quality of distance education and how much a student can learn.  Perhaps the launch of edX by MIT and Harvard opened the gates -- suddenly high-profile, top-notch universities were committing to distance education with significant resources, searching for new ways of teaching and learning.

For whatever reason, today’s conversations by faculty focus less on quality and more on the qualities of distance education. Many express concern that a distance course may be deficient at enhancing cognition, emotion and interpersonal relationship-building, or at developing the "whole student." These are reasonable concerns. No serious distance educator would ever suggest that distance education fully supplants the benefits of a live in-person experience. Rather, we argue that the loss of face-to-face benefits in a classroom can be mitigated in a distance learning environment if students achieve the intended learning outcomes while benefiting from convenience and increased access to higher education.

Faculty are also keenly interested in the impact of distance education on higher education broadly and the faculty workforce specifically. Given that distance courses can be taught by faculty anywhere in the world to students anywhere in the world, they question whether distance education will result in a sort of standardization of curriculum, fewer faculty at their home institutions, and lower standard of quality.

While not unreasonable, such questions must be considered within the context of how distance education is evolving. If today’s MOOCs become widely available for credit, concern would be merited. However, if most credit-bearing distance education is "actively taught," then the risks are lessened, if only because the costs of actively taught distance education can be just as great as the costs of traditional education.

Besides, without dramatic change, institutions of higher education, many of which are in financial distress, face a highly uncertain future. The question to ponder: how a future with distance education compares to all other possible futures for higher education.

 

Joel Shapiro is associate dean of academics at Northwestern University School of Continuing Studies and has taught in and led distance education programming at Northwestern for more than six years.

Editorial Tags: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Instructional technology / distance education
Back to Top