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.
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.
I note that my last three posts have all been about MOOCs. I think I’m MOOC-d out, although the combination of the M-word and the V-word (Virginia – as in University of) have, for me, totally confirmed that Higher Ed. change is afoot. There can be no turning back. Stuff is happening, things are changing, the only real question that remains as far as I see it, is What’s stopping us all really hitting SEND?
The UVa case brings up the G-word – Governance: more pertinently preceded with the word Shared. Shared Governance; the amazing concept that people with totally different agendas, world views and degrees of ethos, will collaborate collegially and set the course for their institutions according to their bylaws, history and mission. On that front my advice to a newcomer to an institution would be simply: work out how it works – in all its dysfunctional glory. If the real discussions happen around the water cooler or at the football field – be there. If the provost’s admin assistant is the real power broker on campus and donuts get you in her good books, go Dunkin’ on her/him. Whatever it takes…
Governance is impervious to being fixed. Somehow it works and no degree of AAU guidance will make it uniform or rational. A university’s governance works only at that university. Where one university takes 12 minutes to approve a new concept, another may take 12 years. Good concepts that genuinely benefit the institution (academically, fiscally, politically, aesthetically) all will go through. Some will lead, others will follow, a few will kick, scream and moan about how it was way better in a mythical golden age. Deal with that – you signed up to be Associate Vice President For Innovative New Ventures and Annoying the Faculty – now make it work…
So – I think I’m saying that all change is possible while nothing is simple. Given that, let’s take on a decent challenge. Not technology, not price, not incrementally changing senior administrators, not that life isn’t fair as MIT have deeper pockets. Let’s take on Credits. In my opinion Credits are the enemy.
Credits are artificial packages of pretend competencies. They are charged at way too high a rate, they complicate transfers, they encourage academic silos and they prove nothing or worth to employers or society at large. They are a means of billing, price inflation and encapsulate all that is wrong and inefficient in higher education – Credits are evil.
Employers don’t look at credits – they look at the degree. They don’t want the pretend competencies that 3 or 4 credits supposedly represent, they want real competencies. In a traditional general ed. program the credit boundaries simply dissuade collaboration and the creation of efficiencies between departments and hence for students.
Look at Lumina, LEAP, The Institute of the Future and almost any organization that has analyzed critical skills needed in 2020 society, and you’ll see remarkable alignment around six or seven key elements.
Inquiry/Analysis, Communication, Creativity, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving, Information/ICT literacy and Quantitative Literacy.
Look carefully at academic undergraduate / associates level syllabi in terms of (when you scratch the surface) how many courses and faculty do actually have these elements addressed. If I were a student looking to master these key skills I might query why having demonstrated that I am a brilliant critical thinker in FIVE classes, do I need to keep jumping through that same hoop, again and again, in a sixth, then a seventh, often in new contexts, evaluated in incrementally different ways by first a historian, then by a mathematics instructor, then by a lit. professor?
Unbundling syllabi with their (often) poorly written learning outcomes and aligning concrete materials with focused assessments provides the context and connections for improved learning. Independent graders and/or standardized tests can confirm that students REALLY DO GET these core elements. Separating curriculum from term times would mean that students can practice then demonstrate competencies clearly and repeatedly at their own pace, building on prior learning, working in areas that provide intrinsic motivation for them personally. It is super that in a typical Gen Ed / General Studies course students will be exposed to the literary giants and will learn (some) key dates in the history of Rome? Europe? The US? (as dictated by faculty whim), but isn’t the bigger goal the competencies? What will make the student succeed in the world? If (s)he is able to develop passions for certain aspects of the general curriculum then that’s great but realistically they don’t have to be passionate about every aspect that a Gen Ed committee patches together to placate seven different departments.
Compare and contrast: as a provider of education which is a better “product”? One where you separate out essential skills, provide practice, feedback around those key competencies (the 6 listed above). And when all are done –a degree that really reflects a valuable skill-set. No more having to graduate the student who hung around for six years and wearied enough faculty members to be shuffled off with a number of credits – maybe not even enough to amount to a qualification, tens of thousands of dollars in the hole.
A focus on credits mean high charges, slow pace, and inefficiencies.
A focus on competencies allows for greater efficiency, leverage of prior learning, real support, real achievement and clear motivation (these skills will help me in my career and in my life).
Employers will still see a degree from institute X, the pleasant surprise will be that it will represent a skill-set rather than a worthless measure of endurance. Learning constant, time variable not the other way around.
Time to graduation, costs and inefficiencies all reduced, motivation, retention and actual competencies all up, registrars with less to worry about, faculty less angst-ridden having to pass students who haven’t really “got it”
Death to Credits! – makes true innovation feasible, even palatable, reduces barriers to change and heck, could even make MOOCs worth talking about (again).
Way too long a post – more of a paper.. but this connects so well with articles in today’s Chronicle titled Before you jump on the MOOC bandwagon and a report tweeted by SNHU President Paul LeBlanc; Cracking the Credit Hour by Amy Laitinen , that I wanted to get it out there
You’re doing MOOCs? – That’s OK then
The zenith of the recent University of Virginia power struggle was the culminating statement released July 17th with only the teeniest smidgeon of schadenfreude: “On Tuesday, Virginia is joining a group of 12 institutions that plan to open their courses to the world, free of charge, through an online platform created by the start-up company Coursera.”In one fell swoop, the suggestion that UVa or its president Theresa Sullivan was in any way off the pace, or not thinking strategically about disruptive change in education, was dismissed. The board members who ousted the president were left looking foolish while Sullivan and her allies were lauded as visionaries who had secretly been cultivating this master plan all along.The significance of MOOCs is both clear and compelling. Supported by influential academic institutions, hundreds of thousands of students signed up, providing data analytic opportunities that could shape future directions of online and traditional (face to face) instruction. Stanford president John Hennessey is quoted in the UK’s Guardian newspaper describing this movement as a “digital tsunami threatening to sweep away conventional university education.” However, it is important to note that Hennessey is talking more generally of the field of distance learning and Stanford’s next steps therein rather than just what is happening with MOOCs. While UVa’s president appears to have assuaged concerns about her incrementalism simply by dropping a four-letter acronym into the mix, many in higher education feel that jumping on the MOOC-wagon in and of itself does not necessarily constitute a Get Out Of Jail free pass. MOOC-involvement should not exempt institutions from genuine, mission-related, analyses of next level distance education, what it means specifically at their institution and the genuine possibilities for disruption in higher education.
What DO MOOCs provide?
1) The opportunity for serious data / learning analytics.
Back in the 1990s most online courses comprised of three simple elements: the readings, the discussion board and the paper. Many institutions, endorsed by enrollments from the undiscerning, did not and have not moved far beyond that. As technology started to live up to its promise, MIT launched what came to be known as their Open Course Ware (OCW) sub-brand with “hi-tech” talking head videos – a.k.a. hours at a time of someone talking over slides produced at great cost, to no great(er) pedagogic effect. As one commentator put it: “If you thought your economics lecturer was boring in person, try watching him or her on a 50 minute Internet video!”
More recently there has been a shift from the educational technology focus (the tools) to the work of Clark, Merrill and others who talk of the importance of Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA), cognitive overload, and Guided Experiential Learning (GEL) (the processes). The question remains – “What really works?” and the answer persists – “We don’t really know.”
The current oversight of online instruction centers on the analysis of student feedback and frequency of logins, but when people skim or where they access alternative (open) materials outside the institutional Learning Management System (LMS) we are hamstrung. With the best technology and platform that $30 million(MIT and Harvard’s combined contribution to this project) can buy, and huge participation numbers, we should at least be able to better see the patterns. Back end analysis is what this is all about. The “X’s” are providing insulation for their employees from day-to-day operational concerns and a focus on data that can’t help but be instructive.
2) Opening Education to the Masses (a.k.a. Democratizing Education)
Theoretically. Free Ivy education to those who are excluded from Harvard’s Old Yard, Stanford’s Main Quad or the Infinite Corridor at MIT. Give us your poor, your unwashed, your pedagogically deprived, we will include them. To my mind this is reminiscent of the early 2000’s “green washing”which suggested many corporations were aligning themselves with easy-to-implement “green” tenets without making any significant changes to business-as-usual profit-making goals. What we may have here is: “MOOC-washing” the principle by which institutions align themselves with MOOCs to proclaim, “look at us, we’re innovative, we’re onboard, we’re involved in the future of higher education and we’re opening up access to under-served communities who we will not otherwise admit.”
Statistics from early MOOCs indicate that this altruistic aspect is being overplayed. Early reports1 indicate that around 18% of participants are taking MOOCs with the hope of “getting a better job.” More than twice that proportion, 39%, are “just curious” while 31% are looking to sharpen skills for use in their current job. In other words, 70+% do not anticipate notably improving their lives career-wise by taking these courses. The largest defined group of participants, 41%, list themselves as “professionals in the software industry.” These people are practically insiders; either curious or looking to climb the ladders they are already halfway up. No poor, no under-served, no unwashed masses.
The whole thing feels faddish.
3) Extending the Brand
As the UVa case showed, in the current climate, being onboard with MOOCs is a publicity feeding frenzy only rivaled in academia by stories of over-privileged plagiarism or college football malfeasance. It has developed into shorthand for “progressive” and “innovative.” Many of the elements behind MOOCs are innovative; the format has helped to “unbundle” the faculty role to a further degree. Ownership of courses is institutionalized, or even shared across multiple institutions, materials development lies with skilled technologists and experts in online pedagogy, grading is done by technology while student advising is managed by staff rather than faculty. The usual concerns over quality, rigor and plagiarism are moot with MOOCs. No credits = no concrete criteria for completion, GPA or persistence. In the light of the recent Harvard cheating scandal it is clear that circumventing these issues does not solve them, but for now, cheating to get a badge or a line on your Link’d In profile seems somewhat less heinous than doing so to walk at graduation and frame a registrar-endorsed qualification. These projects at the moment are only really extending the brand for brands that are extremely strong already. The X project would simply subsume lesser institutions if it invited them to join at all. Berkley only got in to the EdX project by offering up platform support. UVa’s involvement in Coursera was mutually beneficial given the panacea and publicity needed by UVa and lapped up by the consortium. Smaller institutions that really need a viable solution for stability and growth are not going to be welcomed into these established consortia and are extremely unlikely to be able to gain momentum to rival them with a cool moniker of their own.
4) A revised lens on pedagogy. (Note the dearth of conversation on this factor)
It is interesting to note that while the “medallion” institutes jumping on board with MOOCs seem to tout the elements that are long shots at best, they typically fail to consider the one element that the originators of modern MOOCs – George Siemens and Stephen Downes – saw as their real potential. Going way back to the early work of pioneers such as Ivan Illich who back in 1971 described “decentralized learning webs” – and summarized thus: “A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.”
The connectivist principles that underpin the MOOC (hidden) pedagogic model include:
i) Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions.
ii) Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
iii) Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
iv) The ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
v) Decision making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.
What we may be seeing with MOOCs is a way to review new pedagogies and analyze the role of the expert, without directly threatening the traditional faculty role. It should be an interesting part of the discussion. It is not.
(It’s all about) Disrupting
In the mid-1970s it was suggested that having faculty play all of the traditional roles they tend to in an academic system; the “impartation of information, counseling, credentialing, coercion and club-membership” was actually in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Wang, (1981). This suggestion was extended to a proposal for “unbundling” the overall faculty role into at least three distinct functions: direct instruction, assessment of student learning, and academic advising. The recent work of Clayton Christensen has posited this “unbundling” as a central tenet for colleges serious about being on the leading edge of new formats for teaching and learning.
Given the questions that resonate around what MOOCs are actually positioned to achieve, the question is begged; are there (other) viable models that have more potential than MOOCs or might extend them to a place where they do become a viable model?
For sustainable disruption to occur the academic model needs to be:
MOOCs arguably meet 2-3 of these criteria – some intentionally, some by happenstance. The gaps in other key areas – fixed terms, credentialing and viable support, mean they will not significantly disrupt in their current format. Given this “good try” assessment of MOOCs are there other models achieving more that should be examined?
What other models have disruptive potential?
1) The Open Education Resource University (OERu).
With no significant budget, OERu has developed a model where open materials are gathered, or “curated,” in a free, open access environment. The main differentiator from MOOCs is that students, if they want to go beyond study for its own sake, can click through to take formal assessments with any of the coalition members. All coalition members reciprocally accept these assessments and credits. The student graduates from his/her main credit-endorsing institution or from the one where (s)he takes her/his last course, with a degree recognized by all accredited members. This model arguably speaks to at least three, perhaps four of the elements listed as needed for true disruption to occur.
It has two elements that MOOCs do not. Their model incorporates student support via a support group of mentors; “Academic Volunteers International,” – a sustainable and scalable community ecosystem providing a pyramid of volunteer support. The OERu model also actually generates revenue. Their guideline for partners was to charge between 25 and 30% of their regular tuition to provide credit for success on course exams. The MOOC-buzz has relegated most other projects, OERu included, to the distant background.
2) Western Governors University (WGU)
WGU have unbundled more than almost any other model. They assign a dedicated Faculty Mentor to each student. This “mentor” is a generalist who works with the student for the duration of the program. Faculty mentors spend approximately 30 hours a week interfacing with students. The mentor to student ratio is 80:1.
Content Mentors are assigned to work with students on particular courses. Each content mentor oversees 50 students; they make regular telephone check-ins. All mentors are assessed on their retention rates, graduation rates and through student satisfaction surveys. There are no mandated times, formats of interaction or frequencies of logins, etc. Tests and reviews that are not automatically graded are graded by Graders – independent of the mentors / faculty. WGU does not develop or teach its own courses. They find the best available courses from OCW (Open Course Ware) and other sources. Each student is given an Academic Action Plan (AAP) based on prior learning and the learning resources and assessments needed to supplement the skills the candidate has and those (s)he needs to develop. Technology (not faculty) delivers content. All content is modular; completing one module opens up access to the next module. They use simulations to develop students’ critical thinking. WGU is the most quoted competency-focused exemplar in the field. Their unbundling and all-you-can-eat format is actually their biggest differentiator.
3) The Entrepreneurs
One unintended consequence of the MOOC phenomenon could be the spin-off opportunities for entrepreneurial innovators. Lack of organized peer-to-peer support is an area being addressed by Open Study – an online learning community with over 100,000 members who gain badges and other rewards by answering student questions. Participants are encouraged to answer by explaining rationales rather than simply providing answers. Excelsior college is an accredited provider providing both challenge exams in under the UExcel banner and a portfolio review in which students document learning by writing about previous learning, providing work samples, or having a third party verify their knowledge.
The gaps in the MOOC package may provide opportunities for other innovators or collaborations providing further opportunities for students to operate their own, personalized “DIY University.” Collaborations among these entrepreneurs are actively working to close remaining gaps – the “Mechanical MOOC” announced August 2012, links Open Study with OpenCourseWare, CodeAcademy and Peer2Peer University and checks almost all the boxes. If they partnered directly with UExcel to confirm credits, they would have to be considered a seriously viable disruptor. As it stands, an A- if ever I saw one.
With the premise that simply aligning with MOOCs raises as many questions as it answers; what might constitute a strategy that, as a university leader, one could present to a roomful of faculty, trustees, alumni and assembled skeptics?
Being involved in the MOOC experiment is great. It could be an important part of a strategy with the understanding that it is a social and technical experiment that may lead to no firm solution. Most online schools that are moving innovatively have separated content development and Instructional Design (ID) from the faculty who teach the courses; MIT, World Campus (Penn State), Southern New Hampshire University, American Public University, and Excelsior to name but a few. Robert Mendenhall (President of WGU)’s recommendation for colleges who want to replicate the WGU model is to set up a “completely autonomous business unit.”Paul LeBlanc at Southern New Hampshire University in November 2011 established the Innovation Lab to, “put our own online program out of business.” The X’s immunity from accountability (and revenue) may yet be their most important feature.
Appropriate Haste ?
A college that is exploring the potential for unbundling the faculty role, one that is looking to utilize either open resources or ones that are already deployed through organizations like The Saylor foundation or the OERu. One that is looking seriously at differentiated revenue models and alternate support mechanisms for students could be one considered to be moving with “appropriate haste.”
MOOCs are a wonderful concept and they have brought tier one research institutes to the discussion by invoking the Google model of “innovate, grow quickly and worry about revenue later.” There is a chance that MOOCs may be the future, but they need to evolve and address many elements that they currently, conveniently, ignore. With MOOCs leaving many questions unanswered, colleges serious about successful entrepreneurial ventures should be asking themselves – What do we strategically want to achieve? How does this affect teaching and learning at this institution? How does this relate to our mission?
“We’re doing MOOCs,” should be a start, rather than an end to the conversation.
A colleague of mine sent the following Inside Higher Ed article this morning,entitled Without Credit it speaks to the search for a viable model to generate revenue out of MOOCs
In response I mentioned that I’m claim the phrase “MOOC-washing” (for disruptive Education wannabes) which so reminds me of Greenwashing in the sustainability movement 10-15 years ago..
– The article merely demonstrates that there IS no real game changer until someone works out a revenue model that is neither (100,0000 enrollments x free) nor this model of an “Enhanced MOOC” – Emperor’s new clothes anyone – guess what ?- It’s an online class for credit costing $300-$400-$500 per credit. Known in some circles as traditional online.
The entrenched, perceived value of the Credit as THE proxy for learning is the real brake on much of this innovation.
There are two key possibilities regarding the CREDIT and it’s centrality to all things.
Given that Option 1 is glacial and outside of anyone’s clear control, I vote Option 2 as the viable game-changer within the next 18 months or so. There will be issues – lingering vestiges of “seat-time” although most people seem to be beyond that now, and the need for collaboration between faculty / departments to get them to agree on what ARE core competencies and how they can be demonstrated.
This model may work better at lower levels (associates rather than Graduate), but I believe that with fresh set of eyes and open rather than turf-war mindsets, we could really produce something innovative and truly disruptive. I LOVE MOOCs but they will not transform Higher Ed. “Enhanced MOOCs” sounds like an attempt to be “down with the kids” without actually doing much of anything innovative at all.
Let’s think outside the box, blow it all up and start again – just pretend you’ve never heard of CREDITS…
One of my new colleagues here at Northeastern (1 month in – time to blog!), sent me the following article on MOOC participation in Inside Higher Ed – Who Takes Moocs?
Here’s my interpretation (for what it’s worth):
I think (personally) that these MOOCs etc are hitting a really different demographic: the intellectually curious rather than the under served / locked-out-of-higher-ed that they aspire to
My synopsis would be
In over-stressing the “employment skills / career development” aspect to 75% of participants (Stanford) – the self-justification seems palpable
This field (MOOCs) is extremely instructive, and the analytics it generates could be a huge boon to Academia, but the bringing education to the masses / opening up the marbled halls aspect seems over-stated.
The Golden bullet still looks to me to be: open course-ware, open platform, faculty (strategically) answering very high level expert questions only, comprehensive student support, very LOW price point with TONS of intrinsic motivation – (game-theory-based?)
MOOCS – get 3 of the six 6 but illustrate very clearly to me that without at least a couple more of these important elements – support, strategic faculty and motivation, they will remain an interesting, academic, exercise.
The Open Education Resource University: a game changer?
One development that could inject new life into the dual-mode model is the Open Education Resource (OER) University that is being explored by a group of public universities from several countries. Open Educational Resources may prove to be the most disruptive element of the impact of eLearning in higher education. How might they help to widen access, cut costs and give dual-mode provision new relevance?
Some institutions are already encouraging the use of OER to avoid each teacher having to re-invent the wheel for each course. For example, once academics at the Asia eUniversity have developed course curricula they do not create any original learning materials, but simply adapt good quality OER from the web to their needs. Similarly, Athabasca University will only approve development of a course once those proposing it have done a thorough search for relevant open material that can be re-purposed.
Some would go much further. In February 2011 New Zealand’s Open Education Resource Foundation convened a meeting to operationalize the concept of the Open Educational Resource University. The idea is that students find their own content as OER; get tutoring from a global network of volunteers; are assessed, for a fee, by a participating institution; and earn a credible credential. The concept has echoes of the University of London External System that innovated radically 150 years ago by declaring that all that mattered was performance in examinations, not how students acquired their knowledge.
Excerpted from Sir John Daniel of the Commonwealth of Learning’s article in Open Learning, the journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning: special Issue on dual mode universities (Volume 27 2012, Issue 1 2012)
Clearly I am connecting with Mindflash today on many levels. David Kelly has a great post on What Angry Birds can tell us about Instructional Design. If you only have 1 minute to skim his paragraph headings do so – I agree 100% – as evidence see my many posts and the fact that many colleagues roll their eyes as I have discussed gamification (game principles rather than simulations) one too many times over the last couple of years…
BTW – assuming he’s not THIS David Kelly – although that would be awesome !