tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611352446353633912024-03-13T17:48:43.179-04:00Learning ReflectionsThis blog is a diary of my thoughts on teaching and learning, educational models, and teaching techniques. This is more than pedagogy, or andragogy, but goes my thoughts about how we experience and learn.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-86369940384656514142014-01-31T08:56:00.001-05:002014-01-31T08:56:48.210-05:00Reflection of Fall 2013: Reaching a limitFall 2013 is where I met my limit to how much I can do. Our campus move to D2L was anything but seamless, and the administrative decisions left the system outdated for what I needed. In frustration, I decided to take all of my classes and labs to my old LMS (Moodle Based). I made the decision late, and ended out building things all semester for 5 different classess affecting >350 students. <div><br></div><div>This semester is going better, but I reached the point where the changes burdened me and affected my instruction. Nothing was particullarly new (except how final grades were calculated), and individual components had been used before; the burden came from transferring and building the various activities.</div><div><br></div><div>Now I have the answer for people about when does flipping/hybridizing a class become too much.</div>Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-10746147694891491262013-10-22T23:25:00.000-04:002013-10-22T23:25:14.569-04:00Learning Beyond the Grade: Gamification and BadgesI have been playing role-playing games since I was 8 (which ultimately means four decades...yikes, that is what this birthday is). When I was a kid, I even used the codes from magazines and books to build computer games on my Apple II. My calling wasn't computer games or RPG design. I've done some of it, and have had friends in both industries that I've talked to about gamification of courses.<br />
<br />
I started about a year and a half ago with badges. University Relations at GSU helped me make the badges (I am still saddened by my originals which I gave to them :). We created a set of badges for what I was doing at the time. Here are some of the examples of the <strong>PAWS UP!</strong> badges. <em>NOTE: the name comes from our campus mascot, Pounce the Panther. Unfortunately, the faculty is not allowed to use Pounce. Only athletics gets to use Pounce (GRRRR!). So I decided to use the pouncing panther paw, so PAWS UP!</em><br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yrpGrVYlXyg/Umc-caYpgPI/AAAAAAAAAW8/SxNF7rRAq58/s1600/BOLO+apprentice+biologist.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yrpGrVYlXyg/Umc-caYpgPI/AAAAAAAAAW8/SxNF7rRAq58/s200/BOLO+apprentice+biologist.png" title="PAWS UP! Apprentice Biology Badge (copyright Georgia State Univeristy)" width="200" /></a>This is the Apprentice Biologist badge, which is given at the course completion (even to people who come into the LMS and complete the online/hybrid component of the course). There is a criteria of tasks to complete to earn this badge.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L_RH4FGXlos/Umc_uhjDprI/AAAAAAAAAXE/luCtO8EYG-M/s1600/BOLO+milestone1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L_RH4FGXlos/Umc_uhjDprI/AAAAAAAAAXE/luCtO8EYG-M/s1600/BOLO+milestone1.png" title="PAWS UP! Milestone 1 Badge (copyright Georgia State University)" /></a></div>
The next badge is regarding Milestone. At three points in the semester, students have to present a milestone paper which is a summation of what they have learned during the preceding weeks. Once aspect of the paper is as a study guide for their Milestone Exam. At the end of the semester, students will clean up their individual milestone papers, combine them, and add reflections. This will ultimately be part of their portfolio, and also act as a study guide for higher level classes. Completion of the paper and exam (which is 70% in numbers) gives them the milestone badge.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AeSTRkSrM4I/UmdAPKhBv4I/AAAAAAAAAXM/CnPHvxwgeZY/s1600/BOLO+scribe1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AeSTRkSrM4I/UmdAPKhBv4I/AAAAAAAAAXM/CnPHvxwgeZY/s1600/BOLO+scribe1.png" /></a></div>
Students also have to participate in daily forums. There are badges set for when they complete a certain number of posts (the automated system on this one broke this semester...still working on fixing it).<br />
<br />
When I first attempted gamification, it was a disaster. The problem was turning traditional assignments and grades into a gamified system. I tried different ways of doing it, but they all ended with points. Even the badges worked that way. In reading literature and blog posts, I rarely found models that I could reinterpreted for biology.<br />
<br />
<br />
This semester, I have a new tactic with grades. All assignments are completion based, and final grades are determined by task/assignment completion. I'm still in shock at how motivated most students are this semester, but it has been a drain setting up the system and refining it during the semester. My goal is to reimagine the badges so that the achievements they represent become the assessment of the students performance. In other words, grading based entirely on achieving course outcomes instead of looking at graded performance on assignments.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-74365925314405233942013-10-21T22:45:00.000-04:002013-10-21T22:45:44.334-04:00Affordance & Limitation of Letter Grades (Part 3) <a href="http://bioramaxwell.blogspot.com/2013/10/affordance-limitation-of-letter-grades_21.html" target="_blank">In my last post</a>, I discussed my syllabus from a 2007 Principles of Biology I course. Now I'm turning my attention to my current <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hybridbiol2107/" target="_blank">Principles of Biology I syllabus</a>, and looking at the changes. <br />
<br />
The first change in the syllabus is to rearrange it into a number of easily identifiable web pages. The goal of this was to help students easily reference sections in the syllabus, and to easily find how they will be assessed. In terms of looking over the syllabus, I first want to focus on the tab labeled "<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hybridbiol2107/instructional-model" target="_blank">Instructional Model</a>."<br />
<br />
From conferences and workshops, I've heard repeatedly that instructors should be open about how they plan to teach the course. One aspect of college courses I've come to notice is that we focus a great deal on the material (especially in the sciences), and less on being successful (both in academics and the world). Many of my students have come from secondary schools burdened by standardized tests and unrelenting oversight, with the result being most have never learned to take notes, study, or more importantly, be active learners. In many cases, I think the idea of learning was beaten out of them and replaced with the idea that learning is a chore.<br />
<br />
While helping my partner study for a leadership course (he had gone back to school for another degree), I came across the idea of situational leadership. I loved the idea from the moment I read about it, and I could see the idea fit perfectly to the transitional stage that freshmen and sophomores goes through. I kept reading about the application of this model to business and education, and decided to use it as the model for the class: trying to help students move from dependent passive learners to independent active learners. (NOTE: still working the bugs out, but I have to say that students are responding better than I had thought). Assignments and due dates are all based on getting students to actively engage in the material, hopefully on a daily basis.<br />
<br />
Why daily? The goal of the undergraduate degree is to start <em>thinking</em> in your academic discipline. For me, biology is a daily activity. When I watch TV, when I read, heck, even when I eat, I can find my thoughts going to things I've learned or worked on in biology. What I have found is that our graduate faculty is expecting that our Juniors and Seniors have started to think like biologists. From what I've gathered from professional schools, they are expecting the same thing. The problem, I don't see it in my juniors or seniors. They are still too concerned about the grade. Thought they don't realize it at first, the instructional model is a trick to get them to start thinking about biology daily.<br />
<br />
The "<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hybridbiol2107/home/learning-objectives" target="_blank">Learning Objective</a>" have become more integral in my course design. Instead of taking something from another instructor or a publisher, I presented the competencies I wanted the students to have at the end of the semester. Each of these is ultimately reflected in the assessments. At the end of the semester, I have to assign grades to the students. This semester though, I decided to take the learning objectives and instructional model to heart. No assignment has a letter grade; the assignment is either complete or incomplete.<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hybridbiol2107/home/grade-scale" target="_blank">Grading</a>" is based on task completion. The student (now called a Learner in my LMS) is presented with a number of Learning Opportunities or Learning Tasks. It is now up to them to complete the assignments they want. <br />
<br />
In some categories, like projects and personal development, there are more opportunities than they need. They get to pick what they want to do.<br />
<br />
You will notice that there are exams. These are multiple choice online assessments to see if they are showing an adequate level of understanding (70% on the exam is what I eventually went with). It doesn't matter if you got a 71% or a 99%. Reason: majority of the time, the student that got over 90% crammed, which means they don't understand the topic later in the semester. I don't want them to cram, I want them to demonstrate their understanding, their learning. (As a note: the milestone papers are due before the milestone exams. Writing the papers in previous semesters increased exam scores about 10%).<br />
<br />
There is a final exam, but unlike most, they have two attempts. It is a comprehensive final. If they don't do well on the first, they get a second attempt. I've done this in previous semesters, and generally most people can pull up the grade. The few times it does not work, either the student really did not know what was going on (they low balled the semester) or they just could not let go of just memorizing facts (the stated goal was that they should understand the biological process, and not just the chemical or cell names).<br />
<br />
A+ has the most stringent requirements. The A level is achievable by most students. <br />
<br />
Why all the work? <br />
When you have a job, you are not given a letter grade, and you will be working on multiple projects at the same time. Part of your yearly evaluation is on what you have accomplished. Are you known for getting tasks completed? Are you know for the quality of your work? Even in professional schools, you have to <em>perform. </em>The goal is to get them to start working at a higher level, move them to a point where they realize that engaging with material is critical to learning.<br />
<br />
So far, the results have been amazing. I have students tell me that they are actually thinking about things we talk about in class. When we dealt with metabolism, a student told me she was actually talking about the breakdown of sugar over lunch with friends. Students are writing forum/discussion responses almost daily, and they are starting to read various levels of articles. I'm getting more questions in class, and the students seem more engaged. We are now moving into the guest lecture and case study phase, so I'm eager to see how it works.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-73075478852112064102013-10-21T19:42:00.002-04:002013-10-21T19:42:28.714-04:00Affordance & Limitation of Letter Grades (Part 2) As part of the affordance & limitation of letter grades module (#beyondlettergrades), I'm spending some time comparing one of my old syllabi with a more current one. Both syllabi come from BIOL 2107 - Principles of Biology I. The course is intended for individuals majoring in biology or working on requirements for Pre-Med. Though many don't get it until it is too late, students really need to get an A in this class if you have hopes of going to Med school (this is from our Pre-Med advisory board and talking to Med school admissions). More important than the grade is the idea that this is a foundational class for all of our other biology courses. The material that students are exposed to will appear again in every course they take, and I have had far too many seniors that did not remember the basics reviewed in this course.<br />
<i>I mentioned the grade because this is a driving force for students that want to get into medical school. They will take easier classes, get good grades at first, but then over their undergrad, they start having problems with higher level classes. One of my goals for about five years is to work on ways of getting them to stop focusing on grades, and instead focus on learning. But 40 can't tell 20, and 20 won't understand until their 40. (so I started tricking them).</i><br />
<br />
The first syllabus is from <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1IESUfCJQP9c1hjNTVyQzRVTms/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">2007 Spring Semester</a>. The document is a PDF in Google Docs with public access. It was originally a single web page that was loaded into our LMS (hence some strange format issues).<br />
<br />
As a state school, there are a number of things we have to put into our syllabi. Not everyone put them in, but over the last few years there has been a concerted effort by the administration to make sure all required areas are in the document. One area that is required are the "Course Learning Objectives". Most of these I got from other instructors, and some I decided upon. The issue though is that they really never directed the course, for me or the colleagues I talked with about the course. Instead, we just tried to make it through all of the chapters of the textbook that were assigned for this class (about 25 chapters). The textbook is a TOME.<br />
<br />
<i>About four years ago, I realized that the textbooks for general biology had become unwieldy. They were reference books, not instructional books. Everyone crams too much in without regard for what is critical for students to learn; hence my renaming them as reference books instead of textbooks. What got me more though as the idea that I was letting a publisher (who may not even have a degree in biology) decide what was important to teach students.</i><br />
<br />
Students see course objectives as meaningless, because teachers have a tendency to down play them. Each semester, I've asked students if they ever look over then. I'm no longer surprised when they say no. As for this 2007 syllabus, the learning objectives play no role in how the students will be assessed.<br />
<br />
Next stop is with the class policies. The first is about assignments (think mini-papers), and you will see <b>No Late Assignments Are Accepted</b>. Of course, this is tempered with reason. If someone is sick for three weeks (and it has happened), then I'll work with them. The one thing I don't work with is someone waiting until the last minute. <i>Should make a note here: our campus assumption is that all students have access to the internet. It is part of the student handbook that they can either use private access or school access (many computer labs). Even in 2007, internet access was not a problem.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I've come to realize that for many educators, the idea of work at your own pace has become important. One problem I have with that concept is that we also need to train people to be successful. Most of these students want to either be in medical school or research. Medical doctors don't have the luxury of waiting a few weeks before they get a patients file over to a hospital for a critical surgery (with the doctor's notes on the patient). If you do research with industry, your on a time line. If a meeting is called, and your suppose to show results, then you need to quickly make a presentation about those results. I always give time limits on assignments in order to help them learn to work in what can be high pressure fields. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Next comes the exams, and you will find that there is a cut off for when you can start the exam. This policy was based on a few ideas: 1) I don't want to give out an exam after people start leaving the exam, and 2) you don't get to come late to a pre-professional exam. <br />
<br />
(I've been trying to finish this post for nearly six days, so I'm going to jump down to the grade breakdown) The grade distribution is based on a 1000 point scale that is easily converted to a percentage system.<br />
<br />
25% of the grade is determined by their lab. The lab is taught by Graduate Teaching Assistants, and is coordinated by a separate faculty member. I have little say in the grade that is given to me regarding their lab performance (and little to no influence over the lab). When it comes down to performance in my class, it counts as 75% of the grade.<br />
<br />
Three exams constitute 30% of the grade, so 10% of the grade is determined by a single exam.<br />
The final exam counts for 20% of the grade, so exams in general count for 50% of the grade.<br />
<br />
25% of the grade is determined by formative assessments and projects, with 18% of this counting for pre-lecture quizzes. These are online quizzes that students take prior to the topic section, and are meant to gauge the students understanding of their reading (they get to take the quiz multiple times, and the highest is kept).<br />
<br />
I kept looking at how I was designing the course, and how I was assessing the students. One big question I had on my mind was: "what do I want these students to look like when they finish my class?" In other words, where do I want their competencies (this was a thought that finally matured when reading over information from the Bologna Accords and the participating in a Lumina Degree Qualification Profiles evaluation).<br />
<br />
My next post is regarding my current syllabus, and the transformations that have taken place.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-43147808453553839612013-10-15T19:48:00.002-04:002013-10-15T19:48:56.970-04:00Affordance & Limitation of Letter Grades (Part 1)As I finish inputting grades for the minimester Freshmen Learning Community, I've been thinking about the Affordance and Limitations of Grading module for #beyondlettergrades. The module asks us to look at a syllabus, but what I really want to do is a look back at my teaching and how I've viewed grades; a retrospective as it were.<br />
<br />
I started teaching after finishing my Masters of Science degree in 1993. My Master's experience was HORRIBLE. The one ray of light was that I loved teaching labs. I got a job at Darton College in Albany, GA. At the time, it was a two year community college, and I loved it (I think my love of teaching Freshman came from there).<br />
<br />
As with most science teachers, I had no formal training in education save for the experience I gained from good and bad professors. I was in my early twenties, and a little out of my depths. My chair, who was a biologist, gave me their syllabi and copies of their tests. No homework assignments, just tests. Three tests and a final to be precise. My chair also coached me a little, and would observe my progress over the next few years. I did exactly what I had gone through: lecture, test, lecture, test. Over the years I started to change things up. I built PowerPoints (new technology at that time), animations, and even HTML and Hyperstack based quizzes. <br />
<br />
The most amazing thing about Darton College was the president. Dr. Peter Sireno was above the curve when it came to vision. He was eager for us to embrace new instructional technology. I always felt the campus to be an encouraging place to experiment with education. During my time there, I was even given the opportunity to go to a series of digital training workshops sponsored by the GA Board of Regents (our higher ed governing body). Unlike most administrators I've known since, Dr. Sireno would listen to us when we talked about the benefits and drawbacks of instructional tech. If we said something didn't work, he wouldn't push it. Instead, he would let us look for other options. (Of course, I know that some colleges from back then will have different impressions. For me, it was an encouraging environment).<br />
<br />
It was during that time that I started experimenting with different ways of assessing students. In the end, exams were still the mainstay, but I was branching out. I tried quizzes, worksheets, and projects. As reference, the main classes I taught were Anatomy & Physiology and Microbiology for nursing students. I had great success during October when students would buy a cheap skeleton and build muscles on it. Still, the main focus of the class was lecture. I was still clinging to the idea that if I did not address all of the topics, the students would not feel they needed to learn it.<br />
In 2000, I left to finish my Doctorate. My head was clearing from my Masters degree, and I found I wanted to do research again. I still loved teaching, but decided to finish this degree. While completing my doctorate, I helped some of the faculty with instructional technology. I built online quizzes for labs as well as tutorials. After my doctorate, they needed someone to take over a class, so I agreed to come on board as a PTI. This quickly changed to visiting lecturer, and then I got a job as an academic professional (Faculty/Administrative) in charge of microbiology and genetics lectures/labs (really it is the labs, but I work with the lectures to make sure we're all on the same page). <br />
When I first started, I wanted to bring new ideas to the classroom. Nothing extreme, but I had the students do quizzes before lecture based on their reading (heck, I wanted them to read). The first semester was difficult. It was Anatomy and Physiology, and I didn't lecture. I started the class seeing if they had questions about their reading. We went from there (OK, only three students ever had questions). Half the students were not doing the quizzes, even though the online assessments were a significant part of their class. They were not interested in actual cases, and even when I did lecture on difficult topics, most people slept. It was heart breaking, but an instructive lesson. Every semester I adapted, altering assignments, altering feedback systems, changing lecture modes. <br />
<br />
At this point, I should mention a few things. I started using digital presentations back in the 90's. I even taught a Continuing Ed series on Power Point. I even did informal experiments where I would use Power Points in one class, but the chalk board and overhead acetates in another. I realized that PowerPoint dumbed down my students. If I gave them the slide ahead of time, they zoned out. If they had to copy them in class, they stopped listening. The classes were I didn't use PowerPoint always did better. I only use PowerPoint now for images/art/cartoons, and that is so I don't have to draw out every structure.<br />
<br />
<hr />
The second thing are clickers. Back in the 90's we did a number of things that involved clickers. Heck, one classroom was rigged so that there were buttons on the desks that corresponded to A-E. Even when I started teaching again in 2005, I used analog systems (<em>e.g.</em>, index cards)to do classroom polls. I HATE THEM. I HATE CLICKERS. Yes, I said it. I have yet to get meaningful results back from students; instead, I've found that they focus on the question, and not the concept. Most are utterly confused when they see a different example of the same concept. It just goes hand in hand with all multiple choice: the answer is here, just pick it. I've had better luck getting them talking about the concept, and then letting them dissect the examples.<br />
<br />
A moment about multiple choice:<br />
I realized a while back that I want to train my students, not just in the discipline material, but in being successful. Most of the courses I teach have either a large number of pre-nursing (pre-allied health) or pre-medical students. Both groups have to take multiple choice pre-professional exams. Most of these students don't know how to effectively take multiple choice tests. Yes, they have done them for years, but do they do it effectively? No. They make common mistakes, like comparing answers to each other and not the question, or more importantly, they don't read the question. Multiple choice for me is a chance to help them learn where they make mistakes on "objective" tests (NOTE: I really don't think they are all that objective...we just say it to make ourselves feel better).<br />
<hr />
<br />
At Georgia State University, I continued to "experiment". I made the labs I teach writing intensive, and in most cases rapid turn around (nursing and med schools are brutal...finish a clinical and have 10 page paper ready the next day). My "lecture" classes had a large number assignments for the students, and I was regularly marked down on end of the semester student feedback for "expecting too much" or "being hard." My goals for my students evolved during this time: Instead of teaching them, I wanted to help them be better learners.<br />
<br />
In 2010, I started to hear about MOOCs, and started to join some of the ones being offered. I slowly but surely kept changing things in class. #change11 changed everything, and it was during 2011 that I yanked the bandage off my classes and changed everything. They are still a work in progress, but I am far happier with the outcomes. Happily, our administration (especially our Provost, Dr. Rita Palm), was very supportive of faculty exploring new methods. We even have a "Digital Champions" program to help encourage people to break out of the old school instructional box.<br />
<br />
In 2012, our system changed our LMS to D2L. I had been exposed to D2L, and was initially happy with the switch. Then I discovered that our system was using the old D2L (not the current), and had either not purchased or locked down the functions I was happy about. I frequently say that the current LMS has pushed us back a decade. I had established external portals before the switch, and have returned. One lesson learned: Bureaucrats who don't involve educators can seriously screw up educational innovations. <br />
<br />
In the next blog, I'm going to look at a syllabus from 2006 and my current one.<br />
If you're interested in some of what I'm doing, you can visit my course portal at:<br />
<a href="http://www.bologsu.us/BOLO">www.bologsu.us/BOLO</a><br />
Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-75001265562242099652012-09-12T19:29:00.001-04:002012-09-12T19:29:14.590-04:00Assessment: Our Cultural Love Affair with Standardized TestsThe Chicago Teacher's Union strike this week has brought to mind again our culture's codependent relationship with standardized tests. I specifically chose to describe this relationship as codependent to emphasize how standardized testing controls and manipulates our educational systems. Instead of being focused on learning, standardized tests focus students on memorizing unrelated and disparate facts in an attempt to prove knowledge and intelligence. What's worse is that they give an illusion to the rest of the country that there is one acceptable knowledge, that which the exam creators decided to emphasize.<br />
<br />
The desire to have some type of knowledge test is easy to understand. American's are by cultural indoctrination pragmatists. We want to see the "results". We want the "evidence". We hate nebulous answers. The problem is...learning is not cut and dry. People learn in different ways, and we process information in different ways. For example, multiple choice logic problems are easy for some people, but difficult for others. Sometimes it is individual, and at other times you can see cultural trends at work. Standardized tests are ultimately a HORRIBLE way of showing that students have LEARNED. They do not show the effectiveness of teachers, unless you are looking at how well the teacher taught the test. I often wonder, have we ever really looked (as a culture) at whether the tests reflect what we think students should be able to do? Even most of the reading comprehension and math standardized tests seem to miss the mark when it comes to discovering what students have learned.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">The prime problem with these exams</span>: They are easy to administer and grade. Most of all, they provide wonder numbers which can then be turned into graphs. Let's ignore the ability to manipulate that data. Instead, let's just focus on the idea that it is easy for administrators. A district can just order the tests in bulk, give them at an assigned time, then bulk process them. The computer then shoots out lots of number....YEAH...Evidence! But is it good evidence.<br />
<br />
One thing I emphasize with my students is that you must look at the underlying assumptions. What follows are two core assumptions I see in standardized testing. There are more, but I'm going to start here.<br />
<span style="background-color: #e69138;">Assumption 1</span>: All people of the same age (grade) have the same ability to process information.<br />
<ul>
<li>This is a bold assumption, and does not hold very well. Even adults have different abilities to process information. </li>
<li>This goes back to the industrial model of the American public school system. All children of age X are sorted into grade Y.</li>
<li>But do all children have the same capabilities? NO. Some may be better in math than others, some stronger readers, others stronger writers.</li>
<li>Core Issue: Each human being is unique (unless you have an identical twin). So we each have unique capabilities.</li>
</ul>
<span style="background-color: #e69138;">Assumption 2</span>: All ethnic groups have the same mental models when they enter school. <br />
I remember one seminar on this topic where the speaker was talking about different thought processes (models) that African American students can come to school with. It was dealing with what would see as a simple question: draw a line between two point. The children's answer was:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HZOeXex2Tsc/UFEYSuoaLZI/AAAAAAAAALk/4H6o2xfcdOk/s1600/Line+between+two+points.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HZOeXex2Tsc/UFEYSuoaLZI/AAAAAAAAALk/4H6o2xfcdOk/s320/Line+between+two+points.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
It is a line <u>between</u> two points. Of course, teachers and standardized tests would count this as a wrong answer, but it does satisfy the paramaters of the question. <br />
<ul>
<li>Children come to school with preconceived ideas (notions) based upon their familial and cultural upbringing.</li>
<li>This changes the lens though which they receive information.</li>
<li>Again, no two children are alike.</li>
</ul>
<br />
For me, the greatest problem with these exams is that they are attempting to<strong><span style="color: red; font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;"> <u>standardize</u></span></strong> human intellect and knowledge.<br />
<br />
In regards to teachers, it is absurd to relate the effectiveness of a teacher to standardized exams throughout primary and secondary schooling. The exams are not giving us clean data, but instead, data based upon the illusionary concept of a human norm.<br />
<br />
NOTE: When you get to specific knowlege (<em>i.e.</em>, discipline specific knowlege), I can see using standardized exams a little more (such as the <a href="http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/about/index.cfm" target="_blank">American Chemical Society's collegiate exit exams</a>). I just don't think the general education exams are really giving us the evidence they say they are giving.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-80027625783084730962012-09-10T12:46:00.001-04:002012-09-10T12:46:58.390-04:00How do I like to teach?Wow, what a loaded question. It came from <a href="http://pedagogyfirst.org/wppf12/" target="_blank">Week 2</a> tasks of #potcert, specifically the <a href="http://lisahistory.net/pot/POTGettingStartedChart.pdf" target="_blank">getting started chart</a>. This may be one questions very few people ask themselves.<br />
<br />
Most people are <i>comfortable</i> in the way they teach, but do they like it? I was very comfortable with the lecture style, and I was good at it. Since I love storytelling, and have an acting background, it was easy for me to stand up in front of a class and just churn out information. But did I like it? It was comfortable. Was it effective? <b>NO</b>. When I saw the same students as juniors and seniors, I could tell that most of them did not remember the material. <br />
<br />
At this point, I should differentiate students. It is ultimately all about the audience, and with the classes I teach, I have different audiences. First there are my college freshmen who are majoring in biology. There are a number of challenges with them, not the least of which is deprogramming how they have learned to <i>game</i> the educational system, <i>i.e.</i>, get good grades without studying. <br />
<br />
Then there are my pre-nursing students. They're taking biology to satisfy the requirements to get into the nursing program. Here you have two types, the hyper motivated who take the initiative to ready and study daily, and those who have no idea how to study. This second group has a high tendency to fail or withdraw because the class is "too hard." Never mind they never came to talk to their instructor, or in many cases, showed up for class. Still, these pre-nursing classes tend to be very bimodal in grade distribution.<br />
<br />
In both cases, I was comfortable with the lecture format. With the majors, I saw that it was very ineffective. The students thought all they had to do was come to class and listen. They never sat with the concepts, never did practice problems, or anything. They passed the exams by cramming, but they never learned. The good pre-nursing students studied like made, but all they learned were pieces; they rarely saw the whole picture. The unprepared pre-nursing students most of the time fell away before I could intervene (larger class sizes). In both cases, I saw that moving to more online assignments, such as quizzes and papers, helped.<br />
<br />
But I realized that more was needed. That is when I moved to a more involved online presence. One of the things that seems to be the most effective is daily newsletters, but I realize I'm on a tangent.<br />
<br />
Back to my original thought: How do I like to teach is an interesting question, and one that I don't think many people consider. It gets confused with issues of comfort and ease. The problem is, <i>is what I like to do effective?</i> This is the second question we have to ask ourselves. It may be easy to lecture, but is it effective? It may be easy to record a lecture and distribute it, but is it effective? I may like case studies, but are they always effective?<br />
<br />
It is a great question to ask yourself. Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-29886959495781962232012-09-07T13:30:00.001-04:002012-09-07T13:30:34.040-04:00To blog or not to blog...I was reading Vanessa Vaile's reflection on a Facebook discussion about <a href="http://moocmadness.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/why-blog/" target="_blank">"why blog?"</a>, and it got me thinking. In teaching, I've used blogs and forums, as well as Facebook and twitter. While I may have likes and dislikes among the different forms, the one thing that they have in common is that they get people talking. That for me is the most important thing.<br />
<br />
Life sciences are conceptually heavy. Unlike chemistry and physics, where you are doing a fair amount of math in the introductory classes, biology focuses on having the students build conceptual models. It helps to talk these models out. It helps to have feedback so that you know your going in the right direction. It's important to start communicating these. If it starts the students talking about their discipline, then it's a good thing.<br />
<br />
Personally I like blogs. They are a space in the digital world that I can call my own :). Where I can put my thoughts down, and let people come in and discuss them. But, they can also be unwieldy for the novice. Getting my freshmen to set up blogs and use them can be rewarding and frustrating. Realizing that they won't use them once the semester is over; really frustrating. The larger the class, the harder it is to get them to really make their blog a learning environment. But the worst is getting them to visit each other's blogs. It amazes me sometimes how resistant students can be to click on another link for class.<br />
<br />
Even with a centralized RSS feed, I found students reluctant to go to each other's blogs and post comments. So I started using other tools. The first was the social framework called Oxwall. It worked wonderfully. Each student had a blog space that they didn't have to decorate and customize (like WordPress), and it built a Facebook like feed. The problem was that it was hard to build other activities. <br />
<br />
So this year, I'm trying Moodle. It is a great LMS platform, and highly customizable. Instead of blogs, I'm using forums for their daily challenges. Strangely, I'm getting them to respond to each other more though this system than I did in Oxwall. I think this is because each daily challenge has an independent forum. They don't have to hunt for things to comment about. That I think is the ultimate key, novices have not learned to effectively hunt for information and learning opportunities.<br />
<br />
OK, they have also never been taught to appreciate and take advantage of learning opportunities (<i>i.e.</i>, the grade is all that matters mentality).<br />
<br />
I'm not a great fan of Facebook when it comes to undergraduate learning. There is far too much signal to noise. Students either never go there (because it's boring) or it takes on a life different than the intended community function.<br />
<br />
Twitter is better, especially if you want to get students to start thinking about their discipline outside of class. I love sending students tweets asking them to think about how knowledge of X (genetics, metabolism, etc...) affects how they look at things. I also get some great feedback from them.<br />
<br />
Like so many things, the audience is what you have to look at first. Having focused forums seems to help my freshmen. They can focus on their challenges without having to try to figure out how to build and maintain a blog. Now, if our school began emphasizing ePortfolios, I would revisit having my freshmen maintain blogs. Until then, using forums seems to be a great middle ground.<br />
Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-20382392321022335522012-09-06T11:55:00.000-04:002012-09-06T11:55:51.686-04:00Joining the Pedagogy First DiscussionThis week, I started picking up messages on my feeds about <a href="http://pedagogyfirst.org/wppf12/" target="_blank">Pedagogy First!</a>, a year long open course dealing with online teaching (and learning). I commented on some of the blogs I follow, and then started looking at some of the conversations that have started during this first week of the course. Enjoying a good challenge, and looking forward to inspiring discussions, I decided to join in.<br />
<br />
As reflection is a great way to analyze your experiences, I decided to reflect on my foray into hybrid online/face-to-face teaching. My discipline is biology, which is a very content heavy subject. Traditionally the introductory levels are focused on low level Bloom's objectives, mainly remembering and some understanding. In teaching college seniors, I started to see a problem; they were not remembering foundational concepts, and they really didn't understand their supposed major. As with so many disciplines, there is an overall picture of life science that is made up of individual jigsaw puzzle pieces. We use to start with having students memorize the pieces, and then later they would see where the pieces fit until they saw the whole picture.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, our society started changing the goal of education. A common meme is that <b><i>all you need is an A</i>. </b>While a good grade is important when applying to medical school, so is understanding your discipline. "What are you going to do when you get to med school," I once asked a student who had horrible study skills and time management. Her replay, "I'll start studying then." My response, "when will you learn how to study? Do you expect to miraculously change?" Over the last few years, I've realized that my A students, the ones who I'm suppose to consider as my best students, were cramming and flushing information. When I saw them as juniors and seniors, they could not answer simple questions that I know they had answered when they were freshmen. I was despondent about teaching, so I decided to start at the ground floor and reconsider my teaching goals: "what did I really want them to leave my freshmen class with?" While content is always important, I realized that I wanted them to start putting the puzzle pieces together. I wanted them to learn how to learn. I wanted them to realize that they were building a mental framework, a foundation, where they could hang further, deeper information about biology. Ultimately, I wanted them to be active learners.<br />
<br />
So I started to transform my classes. I originally used the term MOOC, but as Lisa Lane pointed out in her <a href="http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/2012/09/you-say-mooc-we-dont-anymore/" target="_blank">blog</a>, the term MOOC really does not apply to what I'm doing.<br />
<br />
For seven years, there had already been a heavy set of online activities for my students, and I had tried to get them to participate in discussions, forums, and even group papers. I've done active learning and case study exercises. Each had high points and low points, but I was still missing the important piece, getting the students to sit with biology, explore the concepts on their own, and really work at learning.<br />
<br />
When I started my <a href="http://biogsu.org/oxwall/" target="_blank">Biology MOOC</a>, the goal was to have students blog daily about topics in biology. I sent them out a daily newsletter to keep them focused, and each newsletter contained a challenge they were to blog about. Three times during the semester, they would compile information they had been writing about, and build a Milestone paper. At the end of the semester, the three milestone papers became a Learning Reflection paper. At each milestone, they also had an online test, with an in class comprehensive final at the end. As for points, very few things were high/punitive point values. Most of the points were small, and there were variable pools of points so that students had multiple ways of earning some points. The goal was to get student working throughout the week on biology, instead of the day before the exam.<br />
<br />
It actually worked better than I thought it would.<br />
<br />
I've been working on a new platform, and with the help of our University Relations department, there is now a logo and badge system. The current open courses can be found at <a href="http://www.bologsu.us/mBOLO/" target="_blank">http://www.bologsu.us/mBOLO/ </a>. More information about Project BOLO (Biology Online Learning Opportunities) can be found at <a href="http://www.bologsu.us/">www.bologsu.us</a>. <br />
<br />
Looking forward to interacting with everyone throughout Pedagogy First.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-18804719272749232772012-08-23T10:44:00.001-04:002012-09-06T11:20:30.328-04:00Rethinking MOOCsLisa M. Lane wrote a elegant post on <i><a href="http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/2012/08/three-kinds-of-moocs/comment-page-1/#comment-43659" target="_blank">Three Kinds of MOOCs</a> </i>on her <a href="http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/" target="_blank">blog</a> the other day, and it has me thinking and reconsidering. She organized current MOOCs into three categories: Network-based, Task-based, and Content-based. The brilliant part of this classification scheme is that all three principles (network, task and content) are part of all three types of MOOCs; it is just that each type has an emphasis on one of those principles.<br />
<br />
Why do I like this? Because it is at the heart of my attempts to adapt MOOC elements into my courses. As I've said before, the MOOC is just a stepping stone. It provides us with a new educational paradigm. Not all courses have to be massive or open to take advantage of the ideas that have been sparked for the MOOC. I also contend that the MOOC is not for all people or learning levels. With Lisa Lane's classification, I need to refine the last thought a little.<br />
<br />
The network-based MOOC has an emphasis on the evolving conversation and learning networks, and is indicative of the first generation of MOOCs. My thoughts regarding the level of the learner/student is most focused on this type of MOOC. Last week's #MOOCMOOC seemed mainly focused on generating conversation, even though there were tasks involved. The building of a learning network was critical. But this type of MOOC requires some level of understanding, life experience, and intellectual maturity. The full format does not work well with most undergraduates, especially when you are trying to help them build up the mental framework of a discipline. Putting a Freshman into such as situation would only add disconnections (but this may well change in the future).<br />
<br />
The task and network-based approaches are more in line with helping students build up their intellectual strengths. This is where I'm focused. Adapting the tools and principles of the original MOOCs to build courses that help students tackle content, build mental frameworks (content in context), and recognize the importance of the learning community/network.<br />
<br />
Now, I would not call what I do as MASSIVE. First, I'm really bad at publicity, so most people don't know about project <a href="http://www.bologsu.us/" target="_blank">BOLO</a>. I do want the course and materials to be open, because having other people come in adds perspective to the discussions. My primary focus though is going to be the students I have in class (I will comment to everyone, but my commitment is to those enrolled in the campus course). These are reasons I see what I'm doing as <b>based</b> on MOOCs, but not an actual MOOC.<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-52576111028508015172012-08-21T13:36:00.001-04:002012-08-21T13:38:07.901-04:00Learning Objects and MOOCificationDuring #MOOCMOOC last week, someone coined a new phrase (at least for me): MOOCify. Basically the idea of turning a current class into a MOOC.<br />
<br />
While I love the term, I'm not crazy about the underlying concept. It's not that I don't think it can be done, and it is not because I "distrust" MOOCs.<br />
<br />
The reason I'm not crazy about the word MOOCify is that it misses out on a critical point: the MOOC is not for all audiences. Instead, I would rather talk about adapting the MOOC model. More specifically, I talk about taking the connectivist foundation of the MOOC, and the tools commonly used in a MOOC, to build a stronger (and more distributed) learning community revolving around a class.<br />
<br />
Let me break my thought down using my class as an example.<br />
To start with, the class I'm talking about is a College Level Freshman Biology class. These students are not ready for a MOOC (and yes, I'm sure about that assessment), and at most, they come in with a "NOVICE" level understanding of the topic. The course is therefore content heavy. None of this so far sets up a good MOOC environment. And the concept of a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/education/mechanical-mooc-to-rely-on-free-learning-sites.html?_r=1" target="_blank">mechanical MOOC</a> being used is just frightening; this class requires that context be woven with content to build a cognitive framework for higher level biology classes.<br />
<br />
So, you have a group of students who require some "instruction", but need more to build their own learning and frameworks. So, taking the concept of blogs, discussions and feeds, build a learning network among members of the class. Open this network to the outside so others who are interested can join in the discussions and activities. Add to this a daily newsletter to keep the conversation going. I took tools from my MOOC experiences, opened the discussion to include new perspectives, and facilitated the discussion. It may be MOOCification, but I think of it more as adapting components that work for my goal.<br />
<br />
Now we come to learning objects. Since this is content heavy, and I want outside participation, I have to include learning objects. For a little tangent...<br />
<br />
During #MOOCMOOC I came across a common refrain of the MOOC being "organic" and needing no "central" space. I have no idea where this idea came from. All of the "successful" MOOCs I've either participated or lurked on have all had what I refer to as a touchstone, some virtual place where information, objects and artifacts can be found. Perhaps a centralized feed of participant comments, but always with a calendar of activities and some general guidelines. The connections made may be organic, but as we learn from biology, you need to have a scaffold to produce any useful form. So I firmly believe that you need to have some central virtual location.<br />
<br />
So, learning objects. For some reason, I feel that this has become a dirty words. What is wrong with a vetted learning object, something which a facilitator/mentor/instructor can use to explain a concept, or even more importantly, start a discussion? Heck, I build learning objects, and yes, I'll open them to everyone (when they're ready).<br />
<br />
Enough for now...Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-55437600743501721472012-08-18T14:49:00.001-04:002012-08-18T14:50:15.522-04:00Bid a fond farewell to #MOOCMOOCThe the chaotic networking of #MOOCMOOC has come to an end. Final reflections: Like any MOOC, what I took away was inspiration and clarity. Yes, sometimes I also get new skills, learn new tools, or start thinking about things in a radically different way. This one helped to firmly establish my feelings on some things, provided some insights, and gave me some inspiration.<br />
<br />
Like any MOOC, I also learned some things from negative examples. The first one is organization. I feel better in a MOOC when there is a touchstone that the community or networks can center around. I don't mean a concept, but some point in virtual space where we can organize things. #change11 was a good example of this. The Canvas LMS system seems like it would be good for some things, but it didn't seem to work for #MOOCMOOC. Part of this could have been the organizing framework, but part is also limitations in the system (I've tried building things in it, but it lacks some functions that I really like for my classes). I think the single biggest problem I had was finding the central platform where all of our comments/blogs/tweets etc... could be collated. Finally found that one Friday...it was under the Dashboard icon which was at the bottom of icon pool. It also wasn't something in Canvas, but an outside link. All that was there were the blog and twitter feeds. I also kept getting random announcements from Canvas, but no central daily newsletter that made sense to me.<br />
<br />
Again, I'll go back to #change11. One thing that really helped me there, both when I was actively participating or lurking, was the daily newsletter. It told me what was happening that day, if there was a webinar, but then it had a brief rundown of blogs posted in the last 24 hours. I could use that to go look at what someone said. This time, I really felt like I had to hunt for that information.<br />
<br />
The other thing that this showed me was that twitter has a point where there are too many people using one hashtag. There were times I could see people's tweets getting lost, and some were actually interesting points (which I either favored or replied to...I'm bad about retrweeting).<br />
<br />
The attempt to use different tools each day to carry out discussions was novel, but sometimes I again felt that connections were missing. For example, Google Docs doesn't work for me when you are there with people you don't know. It works better for me when I can see their comments and have an idea of where they're coming from. I'm sure others had better experiences with that than I, but for me it felt very disconnecting, not connecting. I much rather get into a chat, so I can start feeling out the person's reasons, instead of getting snapshots that don't always relate. <br />
<br />
As I said up top, I did leave #MOOCMOOC with some new ideas, fresh inspiration, and some more solid footing. It goes to what I've said about MOOCs here and in tweets, what you get out of a MOOC is what you put into it. Further, no MOOC will match your expectations; each one has surprises and annoyances. We don't all fit the same mold, so not all things will work equally well for everyone.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-15996715135733182552012-08-17T17:29:00.001-04:002012-08-17T17:29:29.530-04:00How to build a MOOCThis post came from discussions in #MOOCMOOC today. There was a brainstorming session about MOOCs, and a live twitter discussion at #digped. Among the many things that came up was a discussion as to the scale of a MOOC, and an assertion that they had to be MASSIVE. This was followed by a concept that the only way to make a course sustainable was for it to be massive so that it could accumulate revenue. There was also a discussion of how to keep people motivated. So, after a little bit of reflection, I decided to tell a story.<br />
<br />
About two years ago, I came to a realization that biology students were not learning <em><u>biology</u></em>. What were they learning, no idea. This epiphany came when I was teaching a senior level course. I asked them to define translation, which for biologists is the genetic process where RNA is used by a ribosome to construct a protein; it is the translation of the nucleic acid code into an amino acid code. <strong><u>They couldn't do it.</u></strong> Well, at least not at first. I spent nearly an hour coaxing the definition out of them. They were all upset that I did not just tell them. It may be the first time that I really blew up at a class. For those who are not biologists, this is one component of the <strong><u>CENTRAL DOGMA</u></strong> of biology. Let me say that again, CENTRAL DOGMA. It is something taught in freshman classes, and nearly every course we teach covers it again in more depth. They have come across this term every semester, but none of them could give me a definition of it. One of the students actually said "well if we saw it as an answer choice I could have told you." <br />
<br />
This was disheartening, and was a real blow to my desire to teach. I suffered burnout after that semester, and started looking at any alternative I could find (even different careers). It was as bad as my first bout of teacher burnout, which occurred when a student said to me, "you can't fail me, I paid for the class." That is when I came across MOOCs. They were an incredible adventure. It was not about passing a test, but instead, about actively taking part in learning. NOT active learning, but <u>actively taking part in your own learning</u>. BTW...I find most of what is called active learning little different from the instructor playing a game with the students; it rarely makes them an active part of the class. I knew I had to find a way of doing this with my freshman students, but that was the problem. These were not sophisticated learners, they were not actively engaged in their own learning. How to do you get a student to actively become engaged?<br />
<br />
My answer was to do certain things in stages, but to make them working on tasks daily a major function of the course. Why? If you are a biologist, then you live with biology every day. The paradigm colors how you perceive the world, as it does with any discipline. Becoming engaged with your discipline is ultimately the only way to master it. <br />
<br />
So, I built a structure I originally called a pseudo-(or petite)MOOC. Since then, I've just started calling it Biology Open Learning Opportunities (<a href="http://www.bologsu.us/" target="_blank">BOLO</a>). What I did was adapt elements of the MOOC for my audience. I built a structure for their learning, and provided a central virtual place for them to meet (not just the LMS).<br />
<br />
The course content was divided into 15 week long topics. Each day, students received a Newsletter that went into depth about an important concept linked to that week's topic. As part of the content, there was a daily challenge for them to blog about. These blogs became the background research for their milestone papers (about 5 weeks worth of material) that were peer reviewed. The three milestone papers became the foundation for their semester end reflective learning paper, which I graded. Along with that, each week had an online quiz that lead to a milestone quiz, which led to an in class final exam (multiple choice, as that is most likely what they will see later). There were other elements as well, but these were two major components of the framework I set up.<br />
<br />
Was there resistance? Yes, but by the end, I could actually tell just from the questions being asked and how rapidly my questions were answered, that they were picking up more than any previous semester. It was incredible.<br />
<br />
Now, back to what prompted this. An open online course does not have to be massive to use the foundations of a MOOC. A massive class is something that happens, and it does not really work for anyone to try to engineer it. Trying to build a MOOC from the top down, that is, from the administration, does not work. I have yet to see an example of a mandated MOOC that actually worked. MOOCs occur when an instructor opens their class, not when a University VP or Dean decides the school needs one. MOOCs are built by the <strong><u>faculty</u></strong>, and only those that want to go through the effort. <br />
<br />
As a continuation of the story, I was invited to an Admin meeting by our Provost (it was a group of us doing "new" things in the classroom). One of Admins said that no one on campus was doing anything with MOOCS. When my turn came, I stood up, turned on the social network I built for my class that was entitled "BIOLOGY MOOC." I looked at the admin and said, "some of us are working with MOOCs." <br />
<br />
To Sum Up: the concept of a MOOC can be taken and reworked for your audience. You don't have to keep everything; instead use the tools that best fit your audience. Be courage enough to fail (because something could easily go wrong), but be ready to be surprised by a success. Effective MOOCs can't be built from the top down. It has to come from a faculty member that is ready to open their class. Mandating a MOOC is sure to kill it, because it will not be based on a legitimate learning goal. BTW a legitimate learning goal comes from an instructor that knows their audience.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-88660475386146662052012-08-16T20:32:00.002-04:002012-08-16T20:32:43.424-04:00Plagiarism (Why I MOOC)Yesterday I was mired in a project, so I didn't join in the #MOOCMOOC discussions. Today, the facilitators have assigned everyone to work with <a href="http://storify.com/" target="_blank">Storify</a>. I'm only a marginal fan of <a href="http://storify.com/" target="_blank">Storify</a>, as I haven't really gotten good submissions from students (they are overwhelmed in most of life that this was just a little too overwhelming). In general I see it as an alternative route for people it speaks to. Since I'm not really in that group, I'm going to hold off on this leg of the tech tour that is #MOOCMOOC.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the reason why I MOOC is to listen to what other people are thinking and talking about, and then reflect on that. It is the alternative perspectives, the conflicting views, and the stray thought that leads to a revelation. The facilitators at #MOOCMOOC have not really <em>added</em> to the conversation (articles and tools have been out there for a while), but what they have done is provide a time point where people interested in open learning connect. That is ultimately the story that I want to take part in this week.<br />
<br />
Today in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Jeffery R. Young presented an article entitled <strong><em><a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Dozens-of-Plagiarism-Incidents/133697/" target="_blank">Dozens of Plagiarism Incidents Are Reported in Coursera's Free Online Courses</a></em></strong>. The interesting item from the article is that people will plagiarize in an online course <strong><u>even when it is for no credit!</u></strong> The author further discusses how some view this as a teachable moment (some cultures see copying as a way of showing honor and esteem for the work's creator), cautioning people from being over zealous or flaming the offender. <br />
<br />
The part I loved the best was when a student claimed that they did not know that copying was wrong. I had a student tell me that recently (a senior). I asked him if he had read my syllabus (which discusses academic honesty), or the section on plagiarism on every assignment, or the tutorial that was posted on plagiarism. He avoided the questions, saying that he did not know copying was wrong. This conversation kept going on and on until he finally admitted that he did not read the syllabus or take the tutorial, and only glanced at the assignment instructions. The teachable moment here was a little more basic (read what you are assigned to read, and read instructions).<br />
<br />
I try to make plagiarism very simple for my students. We are in the biological sciences, and it is extremely rare for anyone to use quotes in scientific papers. So the first thing I tell students is that they may not quote or copy from any source. The next thing I emphasize is that they must use <u>their own words</u>. That one phrase, their own words, is repeated throughout the semester. If they come and ask, I tell them that I'll sit down and help them; I never give them the sentence, but try to help them work out what they want to say. But, this is where the reflection begins...<br />
<br />
Today, I started really asking myself what I consider plagiarism in the world of web 2.0. When is it sharing, remixing or plagiarism? There are posts in facebook, and even twitter, that I know were taken directly off of a website with no citation or hyperlink (which I'm starting to see as a form of citation). Would I consider that plagiarism? No, not really. But why?<br />
<br />
We have the distinction between formal and informal writing. A facebook post is considered informal, as is twitter and any other form of social media. In the informal setting, we don't use all the formal rules of English. It is in this social setting that we can hash out our thoughts, put them out there for people to comment on, critic, or just to return to for reflection.<br />
<br />
Back in high school, when I had to write a term paper, I had to sit there and make note cards that would be turned in for a grade. There was a <em>formal</em> structure for making these note cards, and a <em>formal</em> structure for organizing them so that they could be linked to my <em>formal</em> outline. All of the instructions were codified in my textbook and had been presented to me in lecture by my teacher. We all had to follow that structure. As you may be able to tell, my mind did not work in that formal structure. I bowed under the academic pressure and did it, then threw them out before I started to write the paper. It actually amazes me when I see colleagues using that system; my mind just does not wrap around that structure. (Actually, let me just say that HATED writing high school term papers, mainly because they were so fragging structured).<br />
<br />
The reason for that story is to reconsider how people can use informal settings to work out thoughts. On those pesky note cards, you were suppose to copy "QUOTES" from the book, as well as make notes. Well, can't those also be done in some form of digital setting (and no I don't want digital note cards). What if you could allow others to comment? In other words, what if informal writing assignments are used as a way to help students hash out their thoughts. <br />
<br />
I didn't realize it at first, but this I think was the reasoning behind the blogging leading to milestone papers I do in my classes. The idea is simple, and now I'm seeing it as more powerful. The blog is a tool, open to others in the class or world, where you work out a specific concept. You then bring the blogs together in constructing your paper. The paper is FORMAL, thus it must follow the formal rules of English, be cited, and free of plagiarism. The blog was where you took the work of others and converted it into your own words.<br />
<br />
I'll leave this for now, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this idea...<br />
<br />
Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-38276563613656464302012-08-16T10:59:00.001-04:002012-08-16T10:59:30.650-04:00Reflecting on "what is learning?"On Tuesday, George Siemens posted a <a href="http://blip.tv/gsiemens/moocmooc-response-6305538" target="_blank">#MOOCMOOC Video</a> about his thoughts on learning and our attempts to structure learning environments. One of the first things he brought up is that you "can't model the behavior of others." This got me thinking as I worked to clean up some projects yesterday.<br />
<br />
As often occurs, the thoughts are various and self-contradicting at times. So what I was going to do is write about some of these thoughts to see what other people might think.<br />
<br />
First: Lectures...why do we hold onto them.<br />
Last week, I was in a 'hybrid education' workshop here at Georgia State University. One of the participants said that they did not feel comfortable giving up lecture. I've heard this before, and last week, as before, the answer came out that how else do you know if they got the content if you don't lecture? I think one reason that some instructors hold onto lecture is a perception of "doing your job". Your suppose to <i>instruct</i> students, therefore you must show that you have <i>instructed</i>, and what better way to do this than to lecture. Some people also consider themselves good lecturers. They make it fun, they tell jokes, tell stories, dance around in costumes, or whatever to help motivate engagement of students. For many though, I think it comes down simply to the idea that <u><i>as long as I have presented to the students the content, my job is done</i>.</u> Then all they have to do is assess to see if the student got the knowledge they imparted.<br />
<a href="http://www.mmdtkw.org/EGtkw0936AlexLibraryClassroom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://www.mmdtkw.org/EGtkw0936AlexLibraryClassroom.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
I don't think we hold on to lectures because it is the best model of education, but because we have a long history of using this style to convey knowledge. Archaeologists are now showing us that this educational style may be older than we thought.<br />
<br />
To sum this up: many people hold on to lecture styles because they think it is the only way to prove that they presented the information to students.<br />
<br />
Second: Modeling behavior. George mentioned that modeling behavior, especially in learning, is "impossible". Still, we have done it for generations. When all we had were experts that could present knowledge in person (no on-demand access to information), the lecture model seemed to work. We also model social behavior from a young age, and generally teach children what society holds to be good ethical/moral behavior. Does it always work? NO. But for the vast majority of us, it worked in part. When you look at children (up to around age 6), you have to have some structure, some idea about their developmental needs. As they grow older, their needs change.<br />
<br />
So the question that keeps coming to mind is when and how do you start adapting to the changing developmental needs of the individual. As I've mentioned before, most freshmen are not ready for a fully open class like the cMOOCs. They are not intellectually inferior, but developmentally, they are not fully mature. In situational leadership concepts, they are still in maturity stage 1: they lack the self-reflection (which comes with maturity) and self-direction (they don't know what they need to learn), as well as lacking the ability (or unwilling) to accept the responsibility of this learning model. As such, they still require direction (structure) to learn the self-reflection and self-direction needed, as well as to gain confidence to accept the responsibility of their own education. The question now becomes how to model something like this. My answer is that you have to provide multiple avenues, and low stakes assignments.<br />
<br />
One thing to note: as we move further into the digital age, it is very possible (even likely) that students will change in what they need from different educational levels. I'm not suggesting that the average 12 year old will be ready for college, but instead that what we need to build to assist their education will be different.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Back to projects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-22609642158973842662012-08-14T12:01:00.002-04:002012-08-14T13:42:41.282-04:00Perceived Problems in MOOCs (Part 4: A Degree Means Something)<em>I'm skipping the fourth proposition in David Youngberg's <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Online-Education-Wont/133531/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en" target="_blank">April 13<sup>th</sup> Chronicle commentary</a> because it is very ill conceived and insulting to those who have degrees in English and the other 'Liberal Arts'. Not only does it show a poor definition of liberal arts, but it also shows a poor model of assessment. Instead, I'm going to focus on the fifth poposition.</em><br />
<hr />
<br />
David Youngberg's fifth fundamental problem with a MOOC is that "Money can substitute for ability." It took me a couple times reading through this part of the article to figure out what he was trying to get at with this title. So that my comments are clear, I've pasted his paragraph dealing with this proposition. I've also highlighted some points I feel are critical.<br />
<em>Higher education leads to a better salary because<span style="color: blue;"> <span style="background-color: yellow;">a college degree is a signal</span></span>. Yes, you gain practical skills in college, but a degree is largely about <span style="background-color: red;">showing potential employers that you're smart and hard working.</span> Grades function the same way. Get an A in philosophy and <span style="background-color: #e69138;">people will find you impressive</span> even if what you learned isn't<span style="background-color: red;"> practical</span>. But the signal only works if most people didn't get an A. <span style="background-color: lime; color: blue;">Signaling is relative</span>.</em><br />
<br />
If your wondering, the highlight colors are akin to National Security warnings. In this case, they are warnings about a really bad perceptual model: that getting a degree at a prestigious school is more important than learning anything, <em>i.e.</em>, that money buys success. Thoughout this whole part of the article, you start to see through the mask. A degree should be reserved for the elite. Beyond that, there are some major misconceptions that my friends in industry would really gripe at.<br />
<br />
Let's start with "...a college degree is a signal." That is very true. It is a signal, but of what? Does a college degree really show that a person is "smart and hardworking"? NO, and many people that I meet are starting to realize that, both in academics and in industry. What is more important is the concept of competencies. You want to know what the person is competent at doing. The Bolonga process is based on showing competencies, as is the Degree Qualificaiton Profile from the Lumina Foundation here in the states. How many corporate giants have to say that they are looking for competent people before the message is heard? David Youngberg focuses his attention on getting an A as the standard of excellence, but what does an A tell you? Is the person smart, or could they game the system? A colleague shared this video with me during #moocmocc.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h_w4AfflmeM" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
Tom Peters is a strong voice in business management, and he is telling people that the A does not demonstrate a person who going to be good for the company. But why? Learning how to game an academic situation to get an A does not provide the skills needed (or desired) in a rapidly evolving global economy/society. Do you really want a passive learner who only knows how pass an exam, but not necessarily learn and create, manning your operations?<br />
David Youngberg is more concerned with impressing people with a good grade, instead of impressing them with skills, abilities, knowledge or even a variety of intellectual models. Philosophy for him is not practical, though it has informed even his discipline for centuries. The liberal arts are downplayed to business communication, instead of being the seeds for inspiration and innovation. How many of our greatest thinkers were also accomplished artists or musicians? (here is a good article if your interested: <a href="http://www.creativitypost.com/create/how_geniuses_think/">http://www.creativitypost.com/create/how_geniuses_think/</a>).<br />
"Signals are relative," and that is very true. But what are the signals we are now looking at, and what do they tell us?<br />
<br />
After this last problem, David Youngberg descends into a strange account of why you don't want to make education cheap. This seems inspired by game theory, but is ultimately reductio ad absurdum, with the conclusion that if education was cheap, everyone would get an A, and thus devalue the meaning of an A. I think he is holding a little to strongly to the supremecy of an A.<br />
<br />
For me, the article revealed a very odd way of looking at the world and education, and the arguments presented were not well considered and out of touch with how the world is changing.<br />
<br />
Does this mean that I view online education and MOOCs as the saviors of education? Do I think that Udacity will ultimately doom universities and college? NO.<br />
<br />
What is occuring now in online education is equivalent to children playing in a sandbox. We have new toys, and we're learning to use them to influence our world. Will all of our play produce something that works successfully? NO, but it will change how we play our games.<br />
<br />
As we move into this new age, we are going to what to know the competencies of an individual, not just some grade given. This does not mean just some sort of certificate or badge. We are going to want to see what the person is capable of doing (the growing use of ePortfolios is a great example). The MOOC as it stands now may not even be around in 10 years save for a historic construct. Individuals will take this foundation and adapt, remix, and rebuild, but that is the nature of Web 2.0 and the amazing connections that we can now form in an information rich era. David Youngberg's arguments are just a dying gasp from a comatose educational era. Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-58083701751320375652012-08-14T11:21:00.000-04:002012-08-14T11:27:50.451-04:00Perceived Problems in MOOC (Part 3 -weird employees)<em>NOTE: yes, I'm blogging multiple times today. The <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Online-Education-Wont/133531/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en" target="_blank">April 13<sup>th </sup> chronicle</a> commentary by David Youngberg really inspired me to put down some thoughts regarding MOOCs. So there will be a couple more posts today.</em>
<br />
<hr />
<br />
Daivd Youngberg's third criticism of MOOCs (and I would gather all online degrees) is that "employers avoid weird people." While repetitive from my last blog, but...WHAT? I'm not sure what business he is talking about, but I know some mighty strange people who work in all manner or technical fields. Come down to DragonCon here in Atlanta, GA, and I'll introduce you to some of them (even those who have high ranking positions). In this case, we may need to have a definition about weird if we are going to accept this proposition.<br />
<br />
What bothers me about this argument is that Youngberg is either tell those of us who participate in MOOCs that we are weird, or that companies are so stupid that they can't spot a potential problem applicant. How many time have you had students who thought they were going to change the world? How many of you have had young assistants or graduate students who thought they were going to lead the next revolution in your discipline? It is plain old neurophysiology and aging at work. They all soon realize that they are not as revolutionary as they thought, and the work environment molds them. <br />
<br />
Most HR professionals I know can spot the non-team player fast, and coming from a college or university does not guarantee that a person will be a team player. I don't see where the link between "unconventional degree" and "radical thinker" comes from. There is no reference to studies, no evidence, so I left to wonder where this idea started.<br />
<br />
Of all the arguments, this is the one that seems the most absurd and out of touch. Most of the people I know in HR and corporations are looking for people who are competent and don't need extensive training. They have a probation period to feel out how they will fit in. I don't see an unconventional degree as labelling them weird, and let's face it, even the best screening practices fail.<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-33737940562731834642012-08-14T10:52:00.003-04:002012-08-14T10:56:33.464-04:00Perceived Problems in MOOC (Part 2: Star Students)Continuing my thoughts on the perceived problems in MOOCs as presented by David Youngberg's <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Online-Education-Wont/133531/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en" target="_blank">April 13, 2012 commentary</a> in the Chronicle, I come to the second perceived problem: that the "star student can't shine." WHAT?<br />
<br />
What is a star student? Is it the one that get's the A because they know how to take multiple choice tests? Is it the student that has learned to cram and flush so effectively that in one night they can game the course content to get a good exam grade? Is the student kisses up by always coming by your office to ask you a minor question (and really never gets around to asking about anything useful)? Or is it the arch manipulator? These are all negative stereotypes, but I've seen colleagues holding these people up as star students. Once their in a challenging class (such as a course taught through case studies), they flounder and complain.<br />
<br />
Both in online and face-to-face, I can spot the students that are trying. I can spot the students that are giving it their all, even if they struggle through the whole course. I've had students that I've said are some of the brightest and best, but they still only got a B out of my class. Why? Because they were great students. They learned. Even after years, they still remembered what they learned in my class. They can still point to AHA moments (now in the dictionary) where they either learned something about the content or about themselves. In my class they may not have been an A student, but they were a star student. They were higher achieving than those that got the A.<br />
<br />
The question is not can star students shine, but what do you consider a star student? Ask yourself, have I given possibilities for students to shine? How do I acknowledge a student's achievement? The idea that a person can not shine in different media is ludicrous. It makes me wonder if David Youngberg felt under appreciated in the Udacity course, and what he considers a star student. <br />
<br />
About being under appreciated, we all feel that way at some point or another, but do you participate in a MOOC or online course to feel appreciated? When I participate in something like a MOOC like #MOOCMOOC going on right now, I'm doing it to learn something, gain inspiration or build connections (networks). What is strange, those students who shine for me, are the ones who are trying to learn the material in the course, those who struggle with concepts, ask good questions, and sit in my office near to tears because they don't understand something. In short, those that are taking the challenge of the learning opportunities.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-934370666717831782012-08-14T10:34:00.004-04:002012-08-14T10:57:05.264-04:00Perceived Problems in MOOCs - (part 1: cheating)In the chronicle yesterday, David Youngberg wrote a commentary titled <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Online-Education-Wont/133531/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en" target="_blank">'Why Online Education Won't Replace College - Yet</a>'. While he makes one good point, there are many other problems I have with his position. Some are just different ways of thinking about education and assessment, while others are perspective.<br />
<br />
Youngberg's first criticism is in cheating, namely that if a MOOC (his central concern in online education) were for credit, cheating would be rampant. Well, cheating is already rampant in higher education, and it is sometimes very difficult to catch. My favorite was the student who took pictures of the test, sent them to other students waiting outside, who then came in "late" for the exam (the first person showed up early). Yes, they got caught.<br />
<br />
For me the issue of cheating revolves around the goal of the assignment. Youngberg does point out that in the Udacity course he enrolled in did allow collaboration on discussions, but then goes on with the idea that there would be cheating if the course was for credit. I state again, your concept of cheating is ultimately tied up in what you view as the GOAL of the assignment.<br />
<br />
In my classes, I use a number of online quizzes as formative assessments. Students have unlimited attempts, and the database of questions that randomize between each quiz is large. I encourage the students to cooperate in answering the questions. The goal is to get them thinking, to reference their textbooks, and online sources. I want them to work on finding the answers. Colleagues have accused me of allowing students to cheat, because a quiz "should reflect what the student knows." How do you argue with someone whose perception of assessment is so myopic? Even online exams (which are not worth a killer amount of points) are not proctored. Could the students be sitting next to each other? Could they be comparing? Could they be looking thing up? Yes, and I expect that they are doing that, but they are still learning. <br />
<br />
Let me state again, these are not punitive exams point wise. These exams are not worth 1/3rd of their grade, like most people post exams. If they do poorly, it doesn't stop them. Instead, it shows them where their still struggling. <br />
<br />
This past semester, my students only had one in class exam: the final. Even then, they had a second chance to take it if they did poorly (new question set though). I had fewer suspicious students during that final exam than I've ever had before. Fewer students with stray glances, furtive looks at what could be a crib sheet, or even the tell-tale bulge of a cellphone. I took the pressure off the exams, and the cheating went down. <br />
<br />
When I asked students how much help they got when taking the exams, they said a little. When I asked them to explain, they said they sat near someone, but that the other person wasn't that helpful (they had 50 minutes to do a 50 question multiple choice). Some admitted that they looked up an answer they couldn't figure out. Strangely, it didn't both me. I still saw it as learning. That, and I ended out with the highest average on the final exam (first round) than I've ever had. <br />
<br />
So, to sum up, I think cheating is predicated on the goals you have for your assessments.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-42563524165722990892012-08-13T20:13:00.001-04:002012-08-13T20:14:39.380-04:00Good MOOC/Bad MOOC<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.andrewgarvey.com/wizard/characters/Images/Glinda%20the%20Good%20Witch%20of%20the%20North%201.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://www.andrewgarvey.com/wizard/characters/Images/Glinda%20the%20Good%20Witch%20of%20the%20North%201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
When I hear the Good/Bad discussion, this is the image that comes to mind. Have gone through a number of MOOCs over the past two years, both as lurker and active participant, there are some likes and dislikes I can identify.<br />
<br />
1. I like to have conversations with other participants. If the MOOC facilitators start talking at me, then I'm not likely to stay. When I sign up for a MOOC, I'm not neccessarily looking for a "class" in discipline X. What I'm generally looking for is connection to an ever widening community of people interested in new models of learning. Since I have a tendency to become a hermit when I focus on a problem, MOOCs and other discussion help provide a touchstone and a group willing to bounce around ideas (or even tell me when I'm going the wrong direction).<br />
<br />
Being part of a MOOC where the facilitator gets in the way...well that becomes a problem. Example: When the facilitator becomes the dominant voice of the MOOC.<br />
<br />
2. A central repository of objects, such as blogs, that can be reviewed and reflected upon. This requires some web framework or system, but provides the participant a place to go to just reflect on what is going on across the MOOC. If I have to go to four different sites just to keep up with the main thought lines of the MOOC, then I'm going to go to take what I can and my own way. <br />
<br />
As a clarification: we all make our own paths through a MOOC, and that is one of the strengths of a MOOC. If the framework though does not support building that path, and instead it is just a jumble of various tools being used, then you're looking at building your path through a briar patch (most likely getting stuck or lost).<br />
<br />
One very important element I've found in what I call good MOOCs is that there is a repository where I can go and scan through things looking for posts/tweets/discussion that inspire me. I can find and follow central threads, or what I've come to call the thought lines of the MOOC. Fishing for tought lines is a pain, as is trying to tease them out of multiple disconnected tools. (The take home message: you need connected tools).<br />
<br />
3. Time: Change 11 was one of my favorite MOOCs, but it went on for a long time. My life changed, the semester changes, and I started a number of projects. As a result, I went into lurker mode in the MOOC. While I can see why people may like a long duration MOOC, I myself like MOOCs that are about two-three months in length. It gives you time to get your feet wet and really get involved. It also provides more opportunities to actually build networks. <br />
<br />
While I like what I've seen and gotten from #MOOCMOOC, I have to say it feels like a speed dating session. I can barely remember what I commented on today. There are advantages to this (you see and do very quickly, and there is very little chance of burning out as the weeks drag on), but there are disadvantages (namely going so fast you're not sure what you've done). <br />
<br />
4. Newsletters: Having daily contact with the MOOC is essential and inspiring. Having something in my email box to remind me about a topic, or better yet, showing me some important threads, is amazingly helpful. Getting an admin note with no content, not so inspiring. With that said, having 10+ messages every day (or every hour in one case) is not so great (I really had to change my notifications on that one). With no newsletters, I feel a little left on my own. With 10+ coming from the facilitator, I feel harassed. <br />
<br />
One thing that needs to be emphasized, is that the newsletters are most helpful when it has content or links that help you bring the previous day/week content into focus.<br />
<br />
____________________________________________________________________________<br />
If you've read my previous posts, you may have seen that I feel that everyone can adapt the foundations of MOOCs to their own situations and audience. Most of my courses are for undergraduates, and as such, they are not ready for what is seen by many as a MOOC (they are not ready to self-organize). My comments here are a reflection of what <strong>I</strong> like when I join a MOOC. What I do in my classes is different because my audience is different. If I were to do an open course dealing with an audience use to self-actualized learning (what we're doing in #MOOCMOOC), then my interactions and framework would be different.<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-74182717827371316002012-08-13T16:02:00.004-04:002012-08-13T16:03:10.115-04:00What is a MOOC?Today's topic in #MOOCMOOC is "What is a MOOC?" There are some collabrative documents being worked on to answer that question, to which I have commented, but I realized that I needed to take a moment to really think about the question myself.<br />
<br />
To answer the question, a MOOC is inspiration.<br />
<br />
Huh? It is a learning opportunity that a person accepts, and then they are inspired to chart their own path to knowledge. The best MOOCs I've participated in have been able to inspire me to explore, read and write (even if it notes to myself). The worst one inspired me to leave (I hate being talked at...as opposed to having a conversation with).<br />
<br />
The concept of the MOOC is also inspiring, and that is what I love about it. <span class="fullname js-action-profile-name">George Siemens, Stephen Downes and </span>Dave Cormier have each done an amazing job building the <u><b>foundation</b></u> of what we see today as MOOCs (specifically connectivist MOOCs). These <u><b>foundations</b></u> are then available for us to use, reuse, remix and adapt.<br />
<br />
Earlier today, Roy B posted a comment to #MOOCMOOC about <a href="https://canvas.instructure.com/groups/42923/discussion_topics/1131533" target="_blank">different kinds of MOOCs</a>. He made a great comment: <i>I am concerned by what I perceive to be a counter-productive "mookier
than thou" theme that runs through many of these references. </i>The references that Roy B is referring to are the papers that have been published about MOOCs in the past year or so. I love the idea of something being MOOKIER, and he is right that it is concerning. It also is at the heart of why I hate questions such as: "What is a MOOC?"<br />
<br />
Why hate the question? First off, it sets up conditions where people try to pimp competing definitions or nitpick specific, and often irrelevant, details. Second, it diminishes the inspiring quality of the core foundation of a MOOC. Do we want to define it so we can credential it? Do we want to define it so we can package it?<br />
<br />
Answering the question in a collaborative way is a great exercise for us to ferret out our own preconceptions and ideas, but it can also lead to division and exclusion. It is also a great cognitive exercise. Still, much can be lost in the process, so I'm glad that the process is only lasting for a day.<br />
<br />
Since I think it important, I'm going to repeat what I said about MOOCs: <u><b>They are inspiring,</b></u> both in terms of content and framework.<br />
<br />
I don't use the term MOOC for the courses I teach, save as in reference to the inspiration. Why? Because it is not a MOOC in the sense that most people use the word. It is inspired by MOOCs, and is based on many tools used by MOOCers, but it is not a MOOC. Why do I say that? It deals with the audience.<br />
<br />
Undergraduate students, for the most part, are not adult learners. They have not made the transition from being passive learners to self-actualized active learners. MOOCs require initative, they require active participation, and even if your just lurking, you have to go out of your way to read things. That does not sound like most undergraduates. My courses therefore put me in the role of both <u><b>Teacher</b></u> and <u><b>Facilitator</b></u>, where as a MOOC needs a facilitator more than a teacher. The goal is to have students to become more active in their learning. Yes, I have to hold them to task at the beginning, but if Spring 2012 is any indication, many of them can then fly.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-72560422981552078962012-08-12T19:17:00.000-04:002012-08-12T19:17:19.068-04:00Adapting the MOOC modelTonight I joined the Twitter intro social for #MOOCMOOC. It got me thinking that I needed to really spell out what I did last year in my biology course. While doing this might help some people, I realized that I needed to do it for myself. Being somewhat absent minded, I need a little space to reflect on what I did, what worked, and what went wrong.<br />
<br />
To start of, the course I am speaking about is Principles of Biology I here at Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA. This is the first biology class for those majoring in biology (or pre-med), and is generally considered a Freshman level course. Spring semester is actually when we get most of the Freshmen to take it, so it was my big course for the year. <br />
<br />While in #change11 mooc, I decided to take a leap of faith and do my spring 2012 course in a new way; call it a petite mooc. For years I've had my students do online quizzes, discussion boards, lists, and even blogs, but in my mind I never got the assignments to gel the way I wanted. Ultimately, I wanted the students to form into one large learning community (that was the idea I got from #change11). So, I completely restructure my course.<br />
<br />
Now remember, these are mainly freshmen. They are not yet adult learners. This may change in the next 10 years, but they are not coming to college (at least not GSU) with the motivation seen in most adult learners. They are also still very much novices when it comes to biology. They may know some content, but they don't understand the context. While I consider myself a mentor, I also recognize that I am still a teacher. There is a need to explain what <u>I mean</u> here, and it spans pedagogy to andragogy.<br />
<br />
The simplest way of saying it is that a teacher is one who TEACHES; meaning one who is going to provide content and context for a student in a given subject. This does not necessarily mean a "Sage on a Stage," but it does mean that the teacher (the Master) is helping to build an information framework for the student (the Novice). <br />
<br />
I really like the model of <a href="http://bioramaxwell.blogspot.com/2011/10/epiphanyelearning-and-student-maturity.html" target="_blank">situational leadership</a> in helping to explain what I mean about the role of the teacher at this point. I know that situational leadership has been modified for education, but I really like some of the simplicity of the original model, especially when it comes to hybrid pedagogies and MOOCs. Put simply, there is a development curve (learning curve) when people start something new; novices need direction, then coaching. More advanced students then need support.<br />
<br />
So my role as a "teacher" is to help them build the mental framework they will use in their chosen discipline, <strong><u>BUT</u></strong> it is also my role to help them develop into more adult learners. That is the part I think many people leave out.<br />
<br />
As I work with a class, I need to provide ways to help them move from novice to journeyman; from being passive recipients of knowledge to active seekers of knowledge. That takes us to the mentor.<br />
<br />
A mentor then is one who takes on the Coaching and Supportive roles. This is also where we enter the realm of andragogy. You are not dealing with passive learners who are in it just for a grade, but with people engaged in the material.<br />
<br />
That brings me to what I did in my last class. First off, here is the syllabus for you to look at: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/hybridbiol2107/" target="_blank">Hybrid BIOL 2107</a>. There are things that I have changed from this, but it will give you an idea where I started. <br />
<br />
Each week of the semester had a broad topic to cover (like Energy Harvesting). Each day of the week students received a newsletter that gave them specific information on the topic and a Daily Challenge. Here is a copy of one of the first newsletters: <a href="http://biomoocnews.blogspot.com/2012/01/daily-newsletter-january-10-2012.html" target="_blank">Daily Newsletter January 10, 2012</a>. <br />
<br />
Students were to blog about the daily challenges. Sometimes the challenge was content based, and at other times it dealt with context. Students got points just for submitting a blog (minimum 100 words) that was on the topic. I could go in and find students who were having problems with information, and correct their errors kindly without a grade being hung over their head. I also didn't have to sit there and try to "figure" out a grade. I could skim, read, rate. I could also bring feedback into the classroom.<br />
<br />
Three times during the semester, the students had to write a milestone paper. Many students quickly realized that they could "steal" from their blogs to write the paper, and that was the idea. To use what they had already written about, and bring it into a logical format. These were graded by peer review, and students were told that this would be the basis of their final paper. I got to go in again and give feedback that was not linked to a grade. <br />
<br />
At the end of the semester, the students combined all of their milestone papers into a learning reflection paper (and they were required to reflect on what they had learned). This was graded by me through a rubric built from their peer review work. It worked amazingly well.<br />
<br />
There was one student who complained that she did not learn anything through this process, and that she felt that she wasted her time. She said this to me the day I was putting grades in from their comprehensive final. One thing she said is that she knew she failed the final because the blogs and writing didn't help her. I showed her the final and her jaw hit the floor. We went through it, and I asked her if she had know (some content point) before the class. Jaw still on the floor, she shook her head. Yes, she had gotten an A on one of the toughest finals I had given. She looked at me and said "I take it all back." <br />
<br />
She was not alone. Over the summer, I had students come to me and ask when they could take me again. They all commented on how writing had helped them, and how they had built friends and study buddies through my course. Most also said that even though other instructors didn't require it, they were still trying to write out information as if I had given them challenges. <br />
<br />
I said I would mention failures. The biggest one was my badge idea. Not because it was bad, but because I could not implement it in a way that didn't distract from other things. We'll see how it works this year.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-57621751143123102322012-07-24T21:26:00.001-04:002012-07-24T21:26:23.408-04:00New ProjectsIt has been a while since I last posted, but it has been a productive (and frustrating) summer. Doing the mini-MOOC with my biology class last semester taught me a great deal, and I've had to go back and reconsider/revise some of my tactics. I also started working with our university's public relations arm to brand my new project (one day our tech people will let me use .edu with my domain...but I won't hold my breath).<br />
<br />
The project is <strong><u>B</u>iology <u>O</u>pen <u>L</u>earning <u>O</u>pportunities</strong>, or<strong> BOLO</strong> for short. The home for the project can be found at <a href="http://www.bologsu.us/BOLO_project/">http://www.bologsu.us/BOLO_project/</a>. The BOLO Project website is ultimately a gateway to a site constructed using MOODLE. From here, I have a platform where I can deliver open content for my courses. Anyone who participates will have the opportunity to earn badges (I have the start of this system, but will continue to work on it), and there will be a final badge for course completion. Since this is linked to the courses I teach at Georgia State University, the course will correspond with the GSU semester. Hopefully though, the information, assignments and extras will be of help to anyone with an interest in biology. <br />
<br />
If you visit the BOLO project site, you will find a message saying that it is still under construction and that the opening date will be August 10th. That is my general timeline to open things up to the public.<br />
<br />
Well, here's hoping it works the second time around.Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-74354480239635128382012-05-09T14:39:00.001-04:002012-05-09T14:39:41.323-04:00Grade Focused v. Learning FocusedCurrently, I am participating in the BONKOPEN MOOC. This weeks discussion of R2D2 (Read, Reflect, Display, Do) got me thinking about some of the issues that came up with my course redesign in biology (<a href="http://bioram-changemoocresponse.blogspot.com/2011/10/goals-change11.html" target="_blank">GOALS</a>). My students worked through concepts, wrote about what they learned, reflected on what they learned,...they WORKED. One of the biggest stumbling block though was getting the students to realize that their work was not about the grade at the end, but the learning opportunity. <br />
<br />
Apart from the grumbling, many of the students admitted that they actually learned. Some didn't believe that they had learned anything, then they saw their comprehensive final. After the surprise abated, they looked at me and admitted that all the writing had put something in their head (<i>i.e.</i>, they had learned).<br />
<br />
What is surprising is that most of these same students would spend hours learning about something that "interested" them. They would look things up, explore, read, etc.... When I asked if they were interested in biology, many of them said, YES. When I asked if they independently studied biology, they said....wait for it...NO. There is a disconnect in their mind between "academic" knowledge and what they find as interesting.<br />
<br />
Add to this that most of our students are trained that they need to achieve a certain grade in a class, and we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you learned a subject, only that you got an A in it. One strange thing that happened this past semester, those students who were good "test takers" (<i>i.e</i>, they had learned to cramp and dump) did not excel. They became the average student. They did not participate in the learning opportunities, and it showed.<br />
<br />
So my question to the general audience: Do you want your students to be grade focused or learning focused? How will you change your class to switch them to being learning focused?Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1161135244635363391.post-24496090157858182202012-04-11T14:58:00.001-04:002012-04-11T16:05:46.539-04:00Innovate Now!In the April 8th edition of Chronicle Review, Ann Kirschner presented an article entitled <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Innovations-in-Higher/131424/" target="_blank">Innovations in Higher Education? Hah!:College leaders need to move beyond talking about transformation before it's too late.</a> The message of Dr. Kirschner's article is that we have to stop talking about innovation and actually innovate.<br />
<br />
The idea of disruptive technologies, and how they ultimately force organizational changes is a critical message. What is needed is not the gradual change often discussed (change one aspect of your class, and then when your comfortable, change something else), but radical change. What surprises most people is that the change is not about the technology, but about our methods of delivery and expectations of students.<br />
<br />
Recently, I was in a discussion with a fellow faculty member and some book reps. My colleague's comment was that they did not really care about the technological offerings of the book company, but instead cared more about the textbook. My response was the complete opposite. All of the books are essential the same from each company, and all are intimidating to the student due to unrestrained depth and complexity of presentation. I wanted to know if the company had tutorials, managed case studies that led students through the problem, short videos on difficult topics, meaningful assignments and practices. I wanted to know where I would need to invent and where I could count on support. I'm not going to just give my students a book and expect that they read it, I want to give them support. OK, so I have brought up tech when earlier I said it was not about tech.<br />
<br />
The change is about our methods: do we stand in front of class as the "sage on a stage" spouting off an hour or more "wisdom" that is summarily ignored, or do we become mentors engaging our students in discussions and activities? Do we flip the class where "instruction" is handled through technology and the mentoring of the student occurs in person? Do we leave behind the flawed idea that "the only way students learn is if I tell it too them", or do we trust that undergraduates can become self-actualized learners?<br />
<br />
A resistance that Dr. Kirschner brings up is the academic culture and disciplines that are woven into Higher Education. Here is where I'm going to go on a major tangent, because this is something I have been considering for a while...<br />
<br />
One of the greatest problems in modern academia is the false separation of individuals by the invisible walls of disciplines. The idea of disciplines was important in the development of higher ed, but now it strangles the life blood out of innovation. How many chemists work with biological systems, and how many biologists do chemistry? At what point do we divide the line. While it can help a novice, it can become a stumbling block, especially when the discipline/department divides prevent stronger collaborative efforts (usually ending when which department/college gets how much of the grant money).<br />
<br />
What if we did away with the invisible walls of disciplines, and went to a higher order set of "school" based upon the faculty and students? Taking the College of Arts and Sciences here, what if we had a school of applied science where people from various disciplines could come under the same roof? Public health, biology, chemistry, geoscience, and physics, anyone who did research and wanted to collaborate in applied sciences. As an urban campus, what if we had a school of Urban Ecology, combining biology, geoscience, policy, social science, etc... with a focus on the Urban environment. Yes, it is a scary thought to do away with disciplines at the faculty level. For students, we could have a school of undergraduate studies that focused on the undergraduates (instead of having them shuffled under the rug of research). We could keep discipline specific areas for undergraduates. Graduate degrees would be less about a name and more about showing the evidence of your work.<br />
<br />
I'll come back to all of this in a bit...<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Maxwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240643165321525400noreply@blogger.com1