For some reason (or should that be for many reasons), I just really liked this post by Rob Jenkins Associate Professor at Georgia Perimeter College. I’ve seen incivility hit morale so badly – and it is by and large SO unnecessary.
Last month I was happy to be back in Austin, TX, for the 5th annual SXSWedu conference. This year I felt embraced by the “little brother” nature of the event — appreciating it for what it is — the palate clearer in Austin before Lady Gaga and/or Snoop Dog/Lion swing into town on a wave of hedonism, brisket and moonshine. I’m, of course, talking about SXSW, the “big brother” event for the music, film and interactive industries that more people may be familiar with, which immediately followed the SXSWedu conference. I enjoyed all of the events and features at SXSWedu before buying a cool hoody that made it look to all my friends that I had been at the SXSW main event — I’ll be rocking that for the next week or two at least.
A follow-up to my recent L-to-A #1 post:
In a follow-up to my recent post, I want to discuss an often neglected element of online instruction; likely the most critical.
Let’s be honest, in the debate as to whether “online works,” MOOCs confused people. For those new to online, those (faculty) considering for the first time now that someone other than (for-profit/insignificant/not proper school) was doing it, they were the easiest online classes to access, and initially focused almost exclusively on slick content presentation. When people assessed MOOCs and then came back to assess (normal? traditional? retention-emphasized? credit-bearing) online courses they tend to ask for access to the course materials sans instructor or student activity. I’m yet to determine if this is merely an oversight, deference to the beast that is FERPA, or collegial respect for the sanctity of the classroom…
My team at Northeastern has experience gathered over more than 150 years working in and around online courses (there are 14 of us). The range of experience includes time at most of the leading online educators over the last one and a half decades. Even a quick sweep from my mental inventory brings up Drexel, Kaplan, UMass, SNHU, UNH, Capella, Boston University, Harvard / Harvard Extension and RISD. During our time together at NU, we have implemented the work of leading theorists in learning, and cognitive science, assessment, usability, self-efficacy, information architecture, multimedia design, graphics and as I write / you read, are experimenting with gamification and the challenge of intrinsically motivating underserved populations.
The work of people like Dick Clark (USC) and Bror Saxburg (Kaplan) has provided us with depth and detail on the evidence-based learning science behind a lot of our development work. We feel that we have clarity on what works in terms of content formatting (length of chunks, organization of media elements etc.) and of some behavioral elements – the importance of frequent, timely corrective feedback, the level of challenge required to keep students engaged. My team works directly with the full-time faculty trying to build in elements that approximate the type of learning that we have called Online Experiential Learning. Authentic, tangible experiences with opportunities to spiral back, reflect, abstract and re-apply case-based learning in a wider, retained for life context. We focus on, and sweat over, materials, formats, fonts, activities and assessments.
The feedback we receive includes: “I don’t care for the fonts” “or “I took a MOOC last week and their videos were really cool… can’t we do that?”
Colleagues who worked with me at smaller institutions (with even smaller budgets) will snigger at this but my budget is less than a tenth of what many MOOC providers have quoted us for production costs. That in itself may be misleading and counter to my point here (yes, I do have one…)… I have reviewed and developed courses that were superb, and superbly appreciated by demanding students who called them life altering. The reactions or conversely complaints rarely if ever center on the content. At one of my former institutions where we tracked student grievances we registered 4% of student complaints that were content-related; 96% focused on non-content concerns (read on…)
At a recent Bill and Melinda-Gates Institute hosted event I heard students respond to the ever-present question “Does online work?” or “Did it work for you?” Some replied enthusiastically and positively, others with quite definitive “No”s / “It was terrible”-type comments. This begs the key question: “What exactly did they hate?” Can you guess???? – the materials? the fonts? the quality of the videos? No, no and no. The comments fell into three consistent buckets:
“The online class was terrible because I got no feedback on my work”
“I didn’t ever really know how I was doing”
“The instructor was M.I.A.”
In other words, and either depressingly or reassuringly, depending on your perspective the juxtaposition of images and text as advocated by the learning science was not pivotal??? Hmm, OK – so here’s a question that I would pose to would-be online students: You have the choice of a great teacher with crappy materials or an absent / crappy teacher with great materials – which would you choose?
Students who self-select for an online class are in my experience, tolerant of technical glitches and they don’t really care if a video has the instructor in pajamas in front of family pictures in a poorly lit room. A responsive, attentive, responsive, empathetic, responsive, caring but challenging, responsive instructor more than offsets the fact that the video is not green screened so that (s)he appears to be in front of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, nor because Krakatoa’s not erupting right now* Their attention has gone after 6 minutes anyway, they don’t care whether “herds of Wildebeest are sweeping majestically across the plain”….
So, to summarize, we assess our collective sweat and tears in the realms of Instructional Design, Learning Science, Materials development, web usability, information architecture, Cognitive Science, Assessment specialists and Graphic art and are then judged by whether the instructor shows up for class or not? – Really?!
Imagine the same criteria for traditional classes: –
Q – “How was your face to face class today?”
A – “Well the instructor didn’t show so we all kind of read the books without direction and chatted amongst ourselves, but that’s fine, it was a great class. I love face-to-face classes.
Here’s my money-shot statement:
A class where the instructor does not devote energy and attention providing presence and guidance is not a failed class, it is a failed instructor.
It is not a rationale for concluding that a means of reaching hundreds of thousands of learners for whom face to face is not an option just doesn’t work.
To be clear, my intention in penning this is not at all to diss overstretched instructors who have themselves not self-selected to teach (see earlier comment on self-selected students). Teaching online is extremely different, not suited to all, can be learned but needs to be embraced (or at least a little bit hugged).
Who make the best online instructors?
Here’s a low-tech answer first:
• Jigsaw puzzlers who want to do 5-6 pieces at breakfast, coffee break, lunch, tea break and an hour or so before bed.
• Slightly obsessive gardeners who feel the need to check in on their tomato plants 4 times a day sometimes just to say “hi!”
A higher tech answer for 2014
• Committed e-bay-ers,
• Social media users (even moderate – parents / grandparents accessing Facebook to see progeny pics),
• Anyone who has ever felt the need to Advise TripAdvisor, then gone back to see if others rate their comments.
• Someone incentivized, by some inner passion, who gets a kick out of nudging things along incrementally. Someone who is a little compulsive and doesn’t like to think of a book misaligned on a shelf. Someone who has bought into the idea that they can have influence (on tomatoes or on travelers). Someone who gets a teeny bit jazzed at the thought that they could be just helping make the world a slightly more informed place, affecting or maybe even changing lives – sounds like a heck of a lot of the teachers I know.
It IS a transition though; teaching and changing lives in fifteen-minute increments, rather than through three-hour classroom performances between grading marathons.
Extending my not-great metaphors even further; does anyone garden in a half-assed manner so that they can prove that gardening doesn’t work? Does anyone eBay because they hate the whole system, which is an online manifestation of the capitalist marketplace, and vent when they sell (or buy) things?
I quite miss writing postcards when I travel, I was quite known for them back in the day (OK, I am old), but it is kind of cool now that I can let 20 times as many people know that I’m in a very cool (or hot) spot and also that they know before the week’s out. Change makes things different. If anyone is so wedded to the traditional that they can’t move – that’s fine. I remember hearing of an instructor at another of my former colleges who eschewed the phone as it was too new-fangled and he needed to see whites of eyes.
I get that. I miss things too. Instructors who dislike or distrust (whatever the rationale) “class” too much to show up should not be given online teaching assignments (surely). Those who are a fit and who get it in its slightly compulsive glory (eBayers, Facebookers, TripAdvisors, / Jigsawers, Tomato-growers or book-aligners) should be supported and cherished. Not every personality makes a good face-to-face instructor, not every personality makes a good online instructor. There is the choice; change, adapt, give it a genuine try, or (simply) don’t take the assignment
My job and the job of the Instructional Designers I work with should be supporting great instruction and genuine effort with appropriate spaces and backdrops for learning to happen. My job can’t be developing materials that substitute for instructors who don’t want to be there and don’t show up for class.
I know that academia is a big ship to turnaround but I wish there was a way to convince instructors that the most important thing in an online class IS STILL YOU. If people like me do our jobs well, we can automate some parts – but PLEASE work with us – we might even be able to take away the boring, dull parts that you don’t like doing. For example:
• Answering questions that you have answered 5000 times before (boom! – a FAQ),
• Reminding people that assignments are due (boom ! (again) – Calendar),
• Developing a working understanding of basic, underpinning knowledge (chunked content and Check Your Knowledge self-checks)
• Being there 24/7, answering every question (let us show you scaffolded, supported peer-to-peer interaction).
I now pronounce you FREE to only have to focus on questions that are stimulating, that allow you to demonstrate and indulge your passion for your subject and engage (disproportionately) through interactions that are significant and (could) change lives. I wrote an earlier blog post on this two years ago titled Disrupted Faculty Roles
An online class that is poor because the instructor didn’t show up is
- a poor class led by a delinquent instructor.
If an institution does nothing about it, turns away from the data that demonstrates it or deflects blame towards materials that aren’t as cool as the latest MOOC, shame on it/them/us.
Online works for a lot of people when planets align and people work together. The instructor’s responsiveness should be close to the top, rather than near the bottom of the list of requirements.
As I said, work with us, then show up for class… in pajamas, eating tomatoes.
- Note * obscure scenic references courtesy of classic John Cleese – Fawlty Towers BBC
– reflections on the Gates’ grantee gathering on Adaptive Learning – Seattle June 2014
Fresh off the trip to the right hand coast of the United States, brought to you courtesy of the sleep-precluding, screaming child in seat 10A, here are some reflections on the “adaptive learning providers and implementers” session hosted in Seattle June 25-27th by the Gates foundation. In a wonderfully choreographed event, open discussion was held, not into whether “adaptive learning is the golden bullet” or “How many students we have saved so far” rather along the lines of “What are we seeing? / What are the issues? and What are the next steps we might take?”
The collegiality between (supposedly) rabid, competing vendors was constructive – there is the feeling that we have moved beyond a zero-sum game and that given the massive challenges, there is no one-size-fits all solution. Being in Seattle-n-all (close to friends at BGI) I am reminded of Robert Socolow’s 2004 “wedges” that he, apparently, revisited in 2011. His work suggested that it will only be possible to avoid climate change / global warming if people combine solutions; look for more efficiency, employ renewable power sources, ban Hummers – that kind of thing.
My first meta-conclusion is that while we are lumping pretty much anything under the “Adaptive” banner, there are a variety of approaches. It appears that no two vendors are approaching this challenge in exactly the same way. There are providers whose platforms provide mnemonic cues to prompt student retention of information, virtual lab / simulation providers, personalization tools, micro-adaptive and macro-adaptive systems, elements of gamification and just plain rich content. None are without value; none will in isolation solve all issues in higher ed., online education.
It may even be counter-productive to over-define. Irrespective of how it gets there (with adaptive, without), what might be helpful would be a solid matrix or rubric that can assess course intrinsic motivation or stickiness. An engagement matrix could measure how likely a course, in and of itself, is to keep student attention. Cognitive science can provide a lot of the guidance and grounding for this. Is the text appropriately ‘chunked?’ do graphics or multimedia support the text or distract from it? And is immediate, corrective feedback being provided for the students to guide and encourage them?
The realm of gamification has the best language to frame this metric. While he will hate me for saying this, my friend Dr. Dick Clark’s work, and that of his peers, compadres and acolytes has a substantial Venn (diagram) overlap with the language of Karl Kapp, Mihalyi Cszikscentmihayi and even Jesse Schell who all talk about engagement and “hooks” to keep ‘subjects’ (gamers, athletes, employees, and (why not) students) – fixated and encouraged to keep going, keep failing, persevering to reach the next level, or to nudge ahead of your friend on the leaderboard – not one solution, one size. Implement, measure, try, tweak. Be flexible but gather data on what evidence tells us.
We might have to think about re-naming this work, given how confused and polarized people are by the term and the concept of “gamification.” Like saying “Voldemort” aloud, “Beetlejuice” three times or channeling Wilde’s “love that dare not speak its name,” “Gamification” both inflates the balloon and lets the air out of the room at the same time. We need a new term; so here is a matrix that indicates parameters by which one can measure a course’s potential degree of engagement or stickiness. Insert your own Likert scale across the X-axis, here are my Y’s for engaging (gamified?) content. The course presents with:
1. (Simple) rules for student participation.
2. Clear goals.
3. Appropriate level of challenge – one requires concentration.
4. Peer engagement (cooperation or competition or both)
5. Immediate, corrective feedback.
6. A narrative of some sort – can be prescribed by instructor or developed by the students (collectively or individually)
7. An aesthetic theme – can be retro, can be fantasy, or can be personal to each student.
8. Reduced fear of failure – encouragement to “have a go” and learn as you go.
9. A sense of user control (“my choices”)
10. The game is intrinsically woven into the learning (not bolted on artificially)
These criteria are pulled from commonalities presented in the work of Karl Kapp, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Roger Callois and others in this field. Adaptive learning certainly helps with a number of these elements; depending on the platform, they can raise a score on (1), (2), (3), (5), maybe (7), definitely (8) and (9). This is the power of AL – it accentuates elements that make courses engaging or sticky, reducing my list of ten to a more achievable list of 3-4 remaining challenges that we can perhaps ask AL providers to add, or we can add on ourselves.
Analysis of what works in engaging people with game environments suggests that well-implemented adaptive learning courses can move us toward a goal of increased student engagement (with course materials) that evidence indicates will enhance their learning leading to positive outcomes (retention, completion).
Conversation developed at the Gates’ session that surfaced another major issue that I believe we are all AVOIDING. In my Part 2 reflection I will discuss an issue that is absolutely pivotal to online success as a learning medium. More to follow after I catch up on sleep deprivation. Be warned.
The subject of the discussion I participated in at the Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO) was “Why MOOCS, why now?” – on a panel including Susan Delagrange, English professor / MOOC-er from The Ohio State University and Larry Johnson, CAO for the University of Cincinnati.
My talking points were:
- Now is a great time to be having this discussion – we’ve been through the hype and the post-hype let down, now is the time to coldly evaluate what is/was great about the MOOC concept, and what else is out there (technology / pedagogy-wise) that could be added to the mix to meet institutional goals.
- MOOCs at least originally were not tasked with effectively addressing community-building, secure assessment or persistence / completion.
- There are other means to meld elements of MOOCs with solid-great work that has been done over the last 15-20 years by Instructional Designers and Innovators in the field; the esteemed Chris Sessums (keynote in the morning prior to my session) being one of them.
- We must be very aware of our target audience – demographic, prior exposure to higher education (successes / failures etc) when we decide on institutional strategy.
- Fragile / post-traditional learners will not persist in a MOOC environment without comprehensive support and a boatload of intrinsic motivation addressed as part of the course build. “We can scale content, we can’t scale encouragement” (George Siemens)
I quoted from Richard Garrett’s recent post Google, EdX and MOOC.org: Addressing the problem or making it worse? specifically “If the consumers most in need of education innovation are the mass of under-prepared high school graduates or working adults, the students least familiar to schools involved in EdX, having EdX take the lead seems wrongheaded. Equally, EdX schools are not in the business of disrupting themselves, and are least open to and least in need of pedagogic reform.”
This was intended as encouragement – great discussions like those hosted this week in Columbus, OH among motivated practitioners are exactly what is needed to develop the next round of effective online courses. These courses should be Effective, Scalable and Evidence-based, cognizant of the latest pedagogies, leveraging technology, open resources and peer-to-peer activities.
- Thanks for the invite OCTEO stay in touch – this blog, Twitter kbell14 or Link’d in – whatever works
This story is baffling/ridiculous – Minnesota is going to ban MOOCs (free online webpages, that charge nothing and grant no credits)
May as well ban online porn while they’re on. Will be similarly effective methinks.