And just like that, it's fall! (or Autumn, same deal)03-09-2020, 12:27 Conference, dissertation, FOMO, instructionalDesign, learning, online, onlineLearning, synchronous conferencing, teaching
It's hard to believe, but the summer is in the rearview mirror. Next week the fall semester begins and as I look back over the summer I see some things I learned (or observed) in these coronatimes:
The FoMo is still strong!
I thought I had beaten back FoMo (fear of missing out) but I guess not :-). This summer many conferences made the switch to online this summer due to the ongoing pandemic and their registration was free. This made them accessible both in terms of place (online) and cost (free) for me. So I registered. I might have registered for far too many because there weren't enough hours to participate synchronously and attend everything I wanted to. Luckily most sessions were recorded, so I was able to go back and review recordings of things I missed. Between the Connected Learning Conference, IABL Conference, OLC Ideate, Bb World, HR.com's conference (and a few more that I can't remember at the moment), I got more Professional Development done this summer than any other summer. By the end of this week, I'll also have caught up with all recordings. The "AHA!!!" moment for me was this: About 10-12 years ago when I was first starting out (as a starry-eyed designer) all this stuff would have been mindblowing. I think online conferences for me are more about filling holes and making me think differently rather than building new knowledge in mind. And that's OK. I discovered a lot of resources that I forwarded to friends and colleagues who would find them more useful than I did because they are at a different phase in their PD. Just like a garage sale (maybe a bad analogy) can yield nothing at all, it can yield a treasure you never thought existed, or it can yield something for your friends and colleagues. You never know what you will find until you start looking.
Quick startups are possible (darn it!)
This summer I was invited by a friend to co-facilitate a couple of weeks of a bootcamp course for teaching online (Virtual Learning Pedagogy). The learner demographic are educators in Nigeria (the course might have been open to other countries as well). The course was offered through Coderina. I think from the time we were all invited to the first week of the course we only had 2 weeks. Last week was the last week of the course. I am not sure how much John slept these 6 weeks, but I think that the course was a success. We talk about agile instructional design in our courses, and I think this was a good example of different teams working on different weeks, checking in with one another, and putting together a course while the course is being taught. Could it be done better? Yes, everything can improve, but I am proud to have been part of such an agile multinational collaboration. I also got to meet a lot of new colleagues that I didn't know before. I think this was a good case study for agile ID. I can't wait to see what the next iteration of the course will look like :-)
Back into 601!
This summer I taught Intro to Instructional Design and Learning Technologies (it's got another title formally, but that's basically it). I had taken several semesters off from teaching in order to focus on my dissertation proposal (which needed a major rewrite - perhaps more on that after I graduate), and I've been looking forward to getting back into teaching. This summer I used the version of the course that Rebecca designed and uses, opting to not use what I had created a few summers back. Part of the reason for using her course was that she had baked into the course consideration for synchronous sessions. I tend to be more asynchronous in my designs (so that people can have flexibility), but I wanted to be experimental this summer with sync-sessions. Another reason I wanted to use someone else's design is to extend my thinking and collaborate with others. I've got my own version of what an intro course can look like, but looking at another designer's design can add to your own toolkit and thinking, Additionally, if there is one version of the course that many people contribute to the design of, I think differing student cohorts benefit both from the stability of the curriculum and from the process of collaborative design in the course. This way if cohort A takes the course taught by professor A, they won't get radically different core content than Cohort B taking the course with professor B. Your learning experience may differ, but core knowledge required down the road by other courses should be more or less similar. I really enjoyed teaching this summer. My students were awesome, and we had good exchanges both via synchronous and asynchronous means. I also loved that I was able to invite friends and colleagues who work in ID to have some candid chats with our learning community. I think this was much more effective than reading articles about what an ID does. If I could hop into a DeLorean and go back to June: This summer I only had 6 students. Such a small number of students can make for a nice seminar-style course, but the course was designed with a class size of 10-15. The dynamics are definitely different with such a smaller cohort. I think that if I could go back in time I'd give students an option: We could have asynchronous forums each week for discussing ideas and topics of the course, or we could forego (most of) the forums and meet synchronously each to accomplish similar means. I think a smaller number of students makes the forum feel a little like an empty playground. It's got a lot of potential but it's only actualized when many kids go play.
Finally, a little bit about this doctoral journey thing. In May I successfully defended my proposal (yay) which allowed me to apply for IRB/REB clearance (yay!). At the end of June, I got that clearance (yay!) so I could start reaching out to study participants. It's hard to believe that a (somewhat) random MOOC I signed up for while waiting to hear back about my application to the EdD program ended up becoming my dissertation topic. I may have bitten off more than I can chew in terms of story (data) collection but Narrative Inquiry is all about the story through someone's position in that metaphorical parade. The parade keeps on moving, and so do participants in it, so I am OK with presenting a sliver of that experience (knowing that it's a sliver of it). It's not possible (for a dissertation anyway) to be a completionist when exploring an experience (which I guess pushes back on my FoMo mentioned above). Hopefully I'll have a good draft of this thing by the end of the semester in December.
So...what was your summer like?
Image credit: "Zen stones" by rikpiks is licensed with CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
HyFlex is not what we need (for Fall 2020)19-06-2020, 10:36 courseDesign, COVID, hyflex, instructionalDesign, learning, teaching
Quite a few people on twitter, including @karenraycosta, were pondering whether they don't like HyFlex (in general), or the implementations of HyFlex that we are seeing. Heck, It seems like HyFlex has become the white label flex model for universities because some of them are creating their own brands of flex!🙄. I wonder what marketing geniuses came up with that. Anyway, colleagues and I have been trying to flex our learning for the last few years as a trial, with mixed results. The main issue that comes out a lot is a critical mass of students, with a secondary issue of staffing. In "pure" modality (full F2F or full-asynch) you need to have a critical mass of learners to be able to engage in constructivist learning. If lectures are your thing and you expect people to sit down, shut up, and listen, then it works just fine. However, for the rest of us who want to build learner connections and interactivity in the classroom we need a minimum amount of students, and we need to have a sense of how many there will be so we can plan activities. An activity for 20 people won't necessarily scale down to 2 people. The same thing is true in asynch, if most people are F2F, writing in the forums might feel like speaking to an empty room.
Things become more complicated if you want to create a sync session online and merge that with a F2F meeting. The instructor becomes not only an instructor but a producer. They need to manage the tech, ensure that everyone on-site has devices that they can beam the online folks in (zoom, adobe connect, etc.) to work in groups, for team presentations you gotta work wizardry to ensure that all people are well represented and the tech works. I've seen this type of producing happen in distance education classrooms of old where people connected 2 physical classrooms via P2P connections, and each site had a producer to manage the cameras that connected the students from one classroom to another, and the remote classroom had a tutor. In total there were 4 people to make this happen for a class of 40. HyFlex (the way it's implemented) expects one person to do this: the instructor.
While I think HyFlex is an interesting model to pursue, I think it's something to pursue for large class enrollments (think classes of 80 or more students), or multi-section team-taught courses (ENGL 101 for example that might have multiple sections taught by many people). HyFlex isn't good for a "regular" class size class (regular defined as 12-20), because you need to design and plan for possibilities that might never occur. This makes course creation more costly, and course maintenance an issue, which falls upon one person: the instructor. Considering that the majority of courses are taught by adjuncts these days - who aren't paid well - this also becomes an issue of academic labor. Think about it (and use my university as an example):
- One course is compensated as 10 hours of work per week (at around $5000, or $33/hour)
- Assume 2 hours per week prep time (really bare minimum here, assuming all course design is complete and the instructor doesn't have to worry about that). That leaves 8 hours
- 3 hours of that is "face time" each week. That leaves 5 hours
- 2 hours per week are office hours. That leaves 3 hours.
- Assume 3 hours per week that you are spending engaging in things like forums, mentoring, reading learner journals, and responding back to them (an equal amount of time spent as on-campus). You are left with no paid hours to devote.
- So what's left out?
- What if you need to do more than 2 hours/week of student conferencing? Do you take a pay-cut? or do you say "first come first serve, sorry!" (not very student-friendly!)
- Who grades and gives feedback for papers and exams? Are they all automated? That's not really good pedagogy
- When does professional development take place to be able to use all the tech required for HyFlex? Is this paid or not?
- Parking on my campus costs $15 per day, so $225 per semester if you are only teaching one-day per week. If you are unlucky and teach 3 days per week (MWF) or five days per week (MTuWThF), then your parking costs are $675 and $1125 respectively.
- This makes your compensation per course:
- $4475 ($31/hour) - one-day teaching schedule
- $4325 ($28/hour) - three-day teaching schedule
- $3875 ($25/hour) - five-day teaching schedule
- While these costs are incurred for people teaching on-campus anyway, when they are off-campus they are not working, however, with HyFlex they still have their online obligations.
- There is a commuting cost associated with going to/from home. Those hours are not compensated or accounted for.
MOOC Completion...according to whom?22-01-2020, 12:22 accomplishment, Badges, cMOOC, completion, coursera, CV, defunct, documentation, edx, futurelearn, learning, MOOC, Open2Study, xMOOX
But let me rewind for a second. How did we get to the topic of MOOC completion? Well, I've been attempting to make my extended CV more accessible (to me). In the past, I used a WYSIWYG HTML publishing platform to manage my extended CV‡. The idea was that I could easily export it and just push it on the web. In practice, I never did this, and when I changed computers it became a hassle to maintain. So, I moved everything over to google docs for cleanup (and easier updates). In cleaning up my CV sections (I am not done, btw!), I did make a startling self-discovery. In the time-period 2013-2016, I binged on a lot of xMOOCs!😅 The most notable platforms were Coursera, Edx, Udacity, but there were others such as the now-defunct Janux (Oklahoma University) and Open2Study (Australia Open University), as well as overseas platforms like MiriadaX and FutureLearn. In the time period 2011-2012 I didn't have a lot of MOOCs, mostly because during this period a lot were cMOOCs and xMOOCs hadn't really spread like wildfire.
This realization now begs the question: "How many did you complete?" (and you guessed it, Kelvin asked it...). My answer comes in the form of a question "based on whose metrics and measures?". When you sign up for a paid course (e.g., professional development seminar, college course, certification prep course, etc.) I think that there is an unspoken assumption that the goals of the course mirror, to a greater or lesser extent, the goals of the learner♠. Can this assumption be something that transfers over into the world of a free MOOC? I personally don't think so. I've long said that the course completion metric (as measured by completing all assignments with a passing grade) is a poor metric. One very obvious reason to me was that people simply window-shop; and since there is no disincentive to unenroll, people don't take that extra step to leave the course formally, as they would with a paid course where they could receive a refund. I've been saying this since xMOOC completion rates were touted as an issue, but few people listened. Luckily it seems that people are changing their minds about that (or just don't care 😜). I guess George Siemen's advice to Dave Cormier holds true for my own rantings and ravings: publish those thoughts in a peer-reviewed journal or they don't exist 🤪 (paraphrased from a recent podcast interview with Dave).
Assuming that we exclude window-shoppers from our list of completion categories♣, what remains? Well, instead of thinking of distinct categories (which might give us a giant list), let's think of completion in terms of whose perspective we are examining. On the one extreme, we have the learner's perspective. The extreme learner's perspective is characterized by total control by the learner as to what the goals are. In this perspective, the learner can be in a course and complete a certain percentage of what's there and still consider the course as done. Why? The learner might have prior knowledge, and what they are looking for is to supplement what they already know without going through the hoops of any or all assessments in the course. They've probably evaluated the materials in the course, but if they already know something, why spent a lot of time on something already known? Or, an item that should be done to obtain 100% completion is only available in the paid version (some FutureLearn courses are like this), and are inaccessible to learners on the free tier.
On the other extreme, we have the perspective of the course designer. This is the perspective that most research studies on completion seem to adopt. The course designer is working with an abstracted learner population, with abstracted goals. The outcomes of the course might be based on actual research into a learner group, they might be based on the intuition of the course designer, or they might just be whatever the course designer has an interest in preparing (sort of like the Chef's soup of the day, it's there, you can have it, but it doesn't mean that this is what you came into the restaurant for). In a traditional course (the ones you pay and get credentialed for) it makes sense that a learner could simply go along for the (educational) ride because they are paying and (presumably) they've done some research about the course, and it meets their goals. In a free offering, why would a learner conform to the designer's assumptions as to what the learner needs? Especially when a free offering can (and probably does) gather the interest of not just aspiring professionals, but people in the profession (who presumably have some additional or previous knowledge), as well as hobbyists who are free-range learning?
Given those two extremes of the spectrum, I would say that there is a mid-point. The mid-point is where the power dynamic between the learner and the designer is at equilibrium. The educational goals (and what hoops the learner is willing to jump through) 100% coincide with what the designer designed. Both parties are entering the teaching/learning relationship on equal footing. If you lean over a little to one side (learner side), the designer might consider the course incomplete, and if you lean over to the other side (the designer side) the learner might start to feel a bit annoyed because they have to jump through hoops that they feel are not worth their while. Some might begrudgingly do it, others not, it really depends on what the carrot is at the end of that hoop. For me, a free certificate or badge did the trick most times. The threat of being marked as a non-completer (or more recently the threat of losing access to the course altogether 😭) however does not motivate me to "complete" the course on the designer's terms.
That said, what about my experience? Well... my own behaviors have changed a bit over the years. When xMOOCs first hit the scene I was willing to go through and jump through all the hoops for the official completion mark. I did get a certificate at the end; and even though it didn't really carry much (or any?) weight, it was a nice memento of the learning experience. Badges were custom made (if there were badges), and the certificates were each unique to the MOOC that offered them. Back in the day, Coursera had certificates of completion (you earned the minimum grade to pass), and certificates of completion with distinction (you basically earned an "A"). It was motivating to strive for that, even though it didn't mean much. It was also encouraging when MOOC content was available beyond the course's official end, so you could go back and review, re-experience, or even start a bit late. As we know, things in the MOOC world changed over the years. Certificates became something you had to pay for. Sometimes even the assessment itself was something you had to pay for - you can see it in the MOOC but you can't access it. Peer essay grading on coursera wasn't something that I found particularly useful, but I was willing to jump through the hoops if it meant a free moment at the end of the course (achievement, badge, certificate, whatever). Once things started having definitive start- and end- dates♪ , and content disappeared after that when certificates (which still we're worth much to the broader world) started costing money, the jumping through the same silly hoops (AES, CPR, MCEs, etc.) it just didn't feel worthwhile to go above my own learning goals and jump through someone else's hoops.
So, did I complete all those MOOCs? Yup, but based on my own metrics, needs, and values.
What are your thoughts on MOOC completion? Do you have a different scale? Or perhaps defined categories?
† There may be some article there somewhere that I've missed, but in my mission to read all of the MOOC literature that I can get access to, I haven't found anything.
‡ What's an extended CV? It's something that contains everything and the kitchen sink. That workshop I did back in 1999 for that defunct software? Yup, that's there...because I did it, and I need a way to remember it. It's not necessarily about the individual workshops, but about the documenting of the learning journey. The regular CV is somewhat cleaner.
♠ Maybe this assumption on my part is wrong, but I can't really picture very many reasons (other than "secret shopper") that someone would pay money to sign-up for a course that doesn't meet their goals.
♣ Window-shoppers I define as people who enroll to have a look around, but either have no specific educational goals they are trying to meet (e.g., lookie-loos), or have goals to meet, but they deem the MOOC to not meet them (e.g., "thanks, but not what I am looking for"). Either way, they don't learn anything from the content or peers in the MOOC, but at the same time, they don't unenroll since there is no incentive to do so (e.g., a refund of the course course).
♪ e.g., module tests deactivating after the week was over and you couldn't take them - AT ALL if you missed that window
Brief notes on CC-Licensing, Copyright, and Greece21-11-2019, 10:52 copyright, Creative Commons, greece, learning, ProfDev, workshop
For this final post for CC-Cert will look briefly at Greece, specifically with regard to Copyright and Creative Commons usage. Πνευματική ιδιοκτησία (intellectual property) or πνευματικά δικαιώματα (intellectual rights) are the Greek terms for denoting copyright, as well as the borrowed term “copyright” itself. The entity, in Greece, that “guards” the rights of IP holders is the Hellenic Copyright Organization (OPI) “ supervises the operation of the system for protecting the authors and the related rights rightsholders; safeguards the rights of the users and the public; balances the interests of copyright sectors with those of industrial property sectors; incorporates and adjusts in Greece the latest evolutions in community and international level, contributing in this way to the promotion of creativity and culture” [source].
Greece’s copyrights, similar to the US, are enshrined in the country’s constitution, more specifically addressed in Articles 2, 5, 14, 16, and 17 dealing with personal and intellectual property [source]. Greece is one of the signatories of the Berne Convention, as well as a member of the WTO, and a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty [source]; as such adheres to the rules and regulations of that treaty. Just like in the US, copyright is bestowed upon the creator when their intellectual work affixed to a tangible medium [source]; examples of such media are books (physical and digital), paintings, drawings, music, photographs and so on [source].
Creative Commons does exist in Greece as an organization but there doesn’t seem to be a good way of discovering content that is CC-Licensed via their portal, or an affiliated portal. If you know where to look, you can find a decent amount of CC-licensed content in Greek. For instance, Kallipos is a repository of Greek textbooks geared toward a higher education audience. Kallipos also includes various learning objects such as exercises, videos, tests, and slides. OpenCourses is Greece’s take on MOOCs, and OCW broadly, where courses and course materials were available under CC-licenses. I consider this a hybrid OCW/MOOC platform because courses offered can range from an “A-” grade level (course notes and other text materials like exams), to an “A” grade level (text notes and audio lectures or notes), to an “A+” grade level (text notes and video lectures or notes). The “A+” level is typically what we see with xMOOC platforms. As of this writing, 26 institutions across Greece participate in this initiative. This initiative is supported by the Greek Universities OCW network. Another initiative is Photodendro, which I would describe as an OER Educational YouTube type of network. The network hosts educational OER videos across a variety of topics in Greek.
Finally, it appears that textbooks for K-12 (which are produced by the Greek Government) are now available for free through the ministry of education. Even though these books are free to download, when I was looking at the front matter of a random sample of textbooks I did not see any CC-licensing information, which means that this material is under traditional copyright! I think this is an area where improvements can be made. If the course texts (and associated teacher resources) become available as OER (they are paid for by public money after all) they can be used globally. One use case that I can think of are bilingual schools where Greek can be one of the language pairings. Making these texts OER would allow local educators to tailor the materials created to be adapted to local needs. I do understand that some of the materials need to be under traditional copyright (e.g., anthologies for language arts often contain excerpts or whole short stories that are under traditional copyright), but I would guess that some exceptions can be made, either by seeking permission from the relevant rights holders, or by crafting legislation for fair use (which apparently isn’t a thing in the EU).
Formal education and social capital24-09-2019, 13:47 curriculum, distanceLearning, eLearning, learning, social networks, socialCapital, university
- someone from my past (I don't remember who).
The other day a long-distance friend and colleague posted an interesting blog post pondering (or positing?) that Social and Cultural capital are the main problem in online education. A very engaging twitter thread and discussion ensued (which I am having trouble locating at the moment), but I thought I'd let the dust settle a bit and collect my thoughts on the matter first. It is a little self-serving too because I wanted to get back into the habit of writing and this seemed like a good opportunity. As I was thinking about where to start untangling this thread the quote at the beginning of this post came to mind†.
As I was thinking about this I interrogated some of my educational experiences, both undergraduate, and graduate, and free-range learning (like MOOCs). Most of my education was residential in nature. Although I do prefer distance education‡ life circumstanced necessitated campus courses for most of my education♠ I am also leaving free-range learning aside. This sets the background for my views. So, what do my (totally anecdotal) experiences point to? Social Capital♣ is not baked into higher education at all. It may be the frosting on the Higher Education Cake, but it's not really an integral part of the experience. There are some courses, that required collaboration, cooperation, or some form of human-human communication certainly approached the topic tangentially♥ but large section courses and lecture courses did not.
So where does learning about social and cultural capital come from in the higher education environment? Extracurricular activities! Oddly enough I think I learned most of my face-to-face skills in this area during my MBA program. There were a number of guest lectures and free workshops available throughout my MBA program that looked at this topic. It was also included in quite a few cases in managerial and HR courses♦ I took. Now, do I remember most of my classmates that I had in class (in person, no less!). Not really. I remember the dozen or so people I worked on projects with, but thanks to LinkedIn I am reminded there were others too 😊. I do consider myself to be an introvert, so organized events and socials, like the ones my MBA program had, were not my favorite venue, but I attended some nevertheless because of the value associated with them.
This begs the question: who do I remember the most? The answer is people from my free-range learning, and people who I met online. Social capital, for people that are at a distance, for me developed outside of the classroom, and not even as an extracurricular activity that was tied to the classroom. University facilities did help◊ but ultimately those connections were made via trial and error, and the willingness to take a leap of faith and chat with total strangers⊕. What makes that leap of faith worth taking? I suppose it depends on each individual. For me, it was finding people to chat in Greek. For others, it seemed to be about soccer, or hockey, or super Mario or some other common interest. The skills learned in these online experiences and online social circles translated directly to both formal distance education as well as free-range online learning. A bit tangentially, the benefit I saw of online vs. face-to-face was that I could easily lurk in online environments and jump in when I felt ready, whereas in face-to-face environments that's a bit awkward.
From my experiences, it seems to me that learning about and experiencing the accumulation of social capital, is a by-product of actual social experiences themselves. And, in order to have those social experiences, you need some other motivating subject (learning, language practice, keeping in touch, discussing the finer points of your favorite novels, etc.). Curriculum (online or f2f) doesn't do that by itself. The experience needs to be engineered in order for it to happen. So, I would say that social and cultural capital are not problems in the online learning environment. It's a bit of an issue across all learning - but it's only an issue if you expect that to be an outcome (sort of like the nameless person who said what I quoted at the beginning).
† It's been said and heard many times, but the one that sticks out to me is the context of cost: You can get an equally good education at Harvard and at your local state university, but you go to Harvard for the connections that will potentially set you up for life. It's highly problematic if you think about it, and it becomes even more so with recent news of Epstein and his connection to universities (i.e., paying large amounts of money to be close to influential people and thinkers). Anyway, I digress.
‡ why drive into campus, park, pay for parking, and deal with traffic when you can learn on the train?
♠ tuition for campus courses was free (employee benefit) whereas online was not.
♣ defined as "the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively." by the OED - didn't bother diving deeper into the sociological literature
♥ Hey, we did have to work together after all!
♦ As opposed to marketing, finance, IT/IS and accounting courses
◊ I didn't have the internet at home at the time, but high-speed internet was available on-campus, so I spent a lot of time in the computer lab
⊕ Ah, the Yahoo! Chat days... brings back good memories
Learning and Certification - thoughts inspired by CC Cert30-04-2019, 11:48 certification, Creative Commons, debate, learning, OER
Creative Commons Open Platform mailing list. The Creative Commons group has created, and is now offering, CC certification. The certification consists of a 10-week online course with a traditional number of students in the cohort (around 20), and there is a cost associated with it ($500). I'll be honest, when I saw the cost I did an eyeroll (at no one in particular). My initial reaction was that I too shared the sentiment that some people on the mailing list reacted to: I've been in the realm of CC for more than five years. I have (or think I have) a solid understanding of CC. Why does this thing cost $500. The fact that Maha speaks highly of her experiences in the course did serve as a means to get over my original reaction to it - which got me thinking...and which brought me back to another point that friends, colleagues, and I have discussed for a while: the difference between learning and certification.
It is true that the price may be a bit prohibitive for some educators that need access to this training, however, as was pointed out in the discussion, the materials for the workshop are all available, for free, under CC (see here). So then, what is the issue? Since the material is free, there is nothing preventing me, or anyone else for that matter, to learn on our own, or form study groups around this particular topic and progress through at our own pace. This isn't any different compared to how I actually learned about CC to begin with. So why the my eyeroll? I suspect that my own reaction was what Downes articulated in one of his emails, which basically is summarized like this: If there is now an official certificate, does this invalidate my own learning and expertise in the field if I don't have this certificate? Which for me basically boils down to an academic version of FOMO (at least for me, your mileage may vary).
Over the past 20 years of professional work I've come across a number of certifications that I felt like I needed to be taken seriously as a professional. There are many examples of this. When I was working in A/V I was actually a CTS. When I was in management I felt like PMP and Six Sigma certification was needed. When I was working day-to-day in Instructional Design, I briefly courted the ideas of CPT, CPLP, and CMALT. And over the years I've come across training, similar in nature to the CC Certs, but for other topics. Over the years I've also kept an eye out on job posting and the requirements for those posted jobs. With a few exceptions, I didn't see any certifications required. There were some notable exceptions - for example project management jobs either required or strongly preferred holders of the PMP cert, but by and large certifications were noticeably absent form job requirements.
This leads me to the conclusion that certification, while desirable as an acknowledgment of completion and and acknowledgement from some higher authority that you've mastered the content isn't necessarily required. That FOMO experienced by not having a certificate is (as most FOMO is) misplaced.
What do you think?
eLearning 3.0: How do I show my expertise?26-10-2018, 16:57 #el30, Badges, cMOOC, credentials, expertise, learning, MOOC, xAPI
This got me thinking about the onus (read: hassle) of tracking down your learning experiences as a learner. I also credit a tweet I read this morning about credentialing, by Donna Lanclos, that really connects well with this. As a learner I don't really care about tracking my own learning experiences. I participate in a learning experience, be it a workshop, a webinar, a course of study, doing research on a paper to be published or presented, or even sustained interaction in a common topic across my PLN. I enter the learner experience because there is something I want to learn. It can be a simple thing (e.g., how to unscrew the case to my PC tower to install more RAM), or something more complicated (e.g., getting prepared for a social media strategy for your organization). Few people enter a learning experience just to get a credential†. However, it's the credential that opens doors, be they doors to a promotion, to a new job, or even an opportunity to be part of an exciting new project. So, it seems necessary that we, as learners and professionals, document all this in a way. The problem is that it's a hassle. There are two big issues here:
(1) What to track (i.e., what's relevant)
(2) Where to track it?
Both issues, very predictably, are answered with "it depends". What to track depends on the context. You can track everything, but not everything tracked is used in all potential instances where credentialing information is needed. For example, most common things tracked are your college degrees. This is fairly easy to track because most of us have a small countable number of them (1-3 I'd estimate). However this doesn't necessarily show growth and increasing expertise as a professional. So we delve deeper. Just taking myself as an example here are some learning opportunities that I have been part of over the past few years (some offer certificates or badges, some do not): MOOCs, week-long workshops, day long workshops, conferences, professional development webinars, self-paced elearning, required workshops on campus (e.g., campus compliance, purchasing, etc.), masters and doctoral degree programs, virtually connecting sessions, and so on. Each format is different. Some have assessments, some do not. Some are mandatory, some are not. They all contribute to my knowledge of my field.
Tracking is another issue. Where do I track things? There are many places. I have a resume - which is out of date, and I can't even find the word document any longer... I have a CV in Word format which I created this year for work purposes, there is LinkedIn, there is ORCID, and there are document repository networks like Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Scribd, and SlideShare; in addition to places where you can help folks with their questions, like Quora for instance. There is goodreads to track what you read. There are places to also track your digital badges, like the Open Badge backpack. I had once actually joined a free service, whose name escapes me at the moment, that was so granular that it could track articles you read - you tagged them with specifics (e.g., elearning, instructional design, online learning), and the service would add 'credit' to your profile for those things★.
So as to not belabor the point, over the years I've come across a variety of learning situations where I've had learning experiences. Some with a nice shiny certificate at the end, others with just warm fuzzy feelings of accomplishment. How do we automate this multiple-in, multiple-out process so that we can actually track things with more precision, but also have the ability to spit out as many customizable reports as we can for credentialing purposes? I don't know about you, but I find myself not having enough time to document everything, and I certainly don't keep things like CVs, resumes, and my LinkedIn profile updated frequently. I think this will be one key challenge in eLearning 3.0.
† well, it's my hypothesis that most people enter a learning experience for the learning and not just the certificate/diploma/badge that comes at the end. I do know that there are people like that around, but I think they are not the majority.
★ Tracking every Chronicle and IHE article I read got tired pretty quick - I read too many articles in a day to really make manual input a feasible thing. I dis-enrolled from that social service within a few days ;-)
It's the end of the MOOC as we know it, and I feel...16-10-2017, 11:00 dissertation, learning, monetization, MOOC, open, PhD, registration, xMOOC
This past weekend two things happened:
The first thing is that I've completed reading full books as part of my literature review for my dissertation, and I have moved onto academic articles, articles I've been collecting on MOOCs and collaboration in general. While MOOCs aren't really the main focus of my dissertation study, they do form the basis, or rather the campgrounds on which the collaborative activities occurred on, and it's those collaborative activities I want to examine. This review of MOOC articles (while still relatively in the early stages) made me reflect back on my own MOOC experiences since 2011.
The second thing is that I received a message from FutureLearn which was a little jarring and made me ponder. Here is a screenshot:
My usual process, when it comes to MOOCs these days, is to go through the course listings of the usual suspects (coursera, edx, futurelearn) and sign-up for courses that seem interesting. Then, as time permits I go through these courses. I usually carve out an hour every other Friday to do some MOOCing these days since most of my "free" time is spent on dissertation-related pursuits. It would not be an understatement to say that I have quite a few courses that are not completed yet (even though I registered for them about six months ago). What can I say? I find a ton of things interesting.
If you're new to MOOCs you might say "well, it was a free course, and now it's going back into paid land - you should have done it while it was available". Perhaps you're right, perhaps not. For a MOOC old-timer, like me (ha!), this type of message is really disheartening, and it really speaks quite well to the co-opting and transmogrification of the MOOC term (and concept) and making something that is not really recognizable when compared to the original MOOCs of 2008-2012; or perhaps it's a bit even like an erasure - erasing it form the past, but luckily at least articles exist to prove that it existed, and cMOOC is still recognized as a concept.
I am convinced that platforms like coursera and futurelearn can no longer be considered MOOC platforms, and should be referred to as either a learning management system (which they are), or online learning platform. Over the past few years things that seemed like a given for an open learning platform are starting to not be there. First the 5Rs started being not applicable. You couldn't always revise or remix materials that you found on these platforms...but you could download copies of the materials so that you could retain your own copy, and this meant that you could potentially reuse and redistribute. Redistribution was the next freedom that went, and after that was reuse. You could still download materials though (at least on coursera and edx). Then a coursera redesign made video download not an option... (still an option in edx, not sure if it was an option in futurelearn), and now courses are becoming time-gated... argh.
The certificate of completion was an interesting concept - a nice gift from the people who offered the course if you jumped through their hoops to do the course as they intended, but it was really only valuable when it was free of cost. This freebie has also been lost (not a great loss since it doesn't really mean much - at least not yet).
All of this closing off of designs and materials (closing in a variety of ways) makes me long for the days gone by, day not long ago, and MOOCs only about 10 years in the past. Although, I suppose in EdTech terms 10 years might as well be centuries.
I do wonder when might be a good time to reclaim the name and offer up connectivist courses again - or perhaps it's time to kill the term (wonder what Dave thinks of this ;-) ), and create something that doesn't have such commercial interests infused into it right now.
University Education, the Workplace, and the learning gray areas in-between17-07-2017, 11:52 eLearning, graduateStudents, higherEd, learning, school, work
I never really forgot what he said next. He said I should switch major; and it was odd that he didn't offer any suggestions as to how to improve†... Being a bit stubborn (and relatively close to graduation) I doubled down and completed my major requirements (ha!). During this chat I told him that I really wish there were more coursework, required in my degree, in additional programming languages because that is what I was expected to know when I graduated for work. His response was I could learn that on the job... needless to say, my 20-year-old self was thinking "so why am I majoring in this now, anyway?"
Fast forward to the recent(ish) past, flashback brought to your courtesy of of this post on LinkedIn. I had recently completed my last degree (this time in Instructional Design) and I was having coffee with some good friends (and former classmates). We were a year or so out of school. Two of us already had jobs (same institutions as when we were in school) and one was on the hunt. His complaint was that school didn't prepare him for the work environment because he didn't know the software du jour (which at the time were captivate and articulate). I did my best to not roll my eyes because software comes and goes, but theory (for the most part) really underlies what we do as professionals. In class there wasn't a dearth of learning about software, but there were limitations: namely the 30-day trial period of these two eLearning titles. So we did as much as we could with them in the time we had with them, and we applied what we learned from the theoretical perspective. No, we didn't spent a ton of time (relatively speaking) on the software because that sort of practice in a graduate program should really be up to the learner, and it would cost them. Captivate cost $1100 for a full license, while articulate costs $999/year to license. That cost is actually more than double what the course cost! Furthermore, it privileges one modality (self-paced eLearning) and two specific elearning titles. The fact of the matter is that not all instructional designers do self-paced eLearning, enabled by these titles. Not all instructional designers are content developers‡. I find the author's following suggestion a bit ludicrous:
To replace the non-value add courses, decision makers can study current open job descriptions, and ignore academic researchers' further suggestions. Programs can then be revolutionized with relevant course topics. These new courses can include relevant production tools (e.g. Storyline, Captivate, Camptasia, GoAnimate, Premier, etc.) and numerous cycles of deliberate practice, where students develop a course on their own, and receive the feedback they need. This will make hiring managers very happy.While I do see value in learning specific technologies, that's not the point of a graduate degree, and graduate courses should prepare you to be a self-supporting, internally motivated learner. Courses should give you the staples that you need to further make sense of your world on your own, and to pickup tools and know-how that you need for specific situations♠. Focusing a graduate degree on production tool is a sure way to make sure to really ignore the vast majority of what makes instructional design what it is. Practice is important (i.e. building your learning solutions) but it's not the only thing that's important. I also do think that employers need to do a better job when posting instructional designer job descriptions, but that's a whole other blog post.
I do think that if you are new to any field you (as a learner) should be taking advantage of any sorts of internships, where the rubber (theory) meets the road. In some programs internships are required, and in others they are optional. I do think that internships are an important component for the newbies in the field. When I was pursuing my MA in applied linguistics, and being in a program that focused on language acquisition and language teaching, the field experience (aka internship) was a requirement. People with classroom teaching experience could waive the requirement and take another course instead, but for me it was valuable (as much as I had to be dragged to to kicking and screaming). In hindsight, it gave me an opportunity to see what happens in different language classrooms, something I wouldn't have experienced otherwise.
So, what are your thoughts? What do you think of the LinkedIn article?
† I guess this must have been a problem with advising in the college in general because years later the college of science and maths put together a student success center. They were probably hemorrhaging students.
‡ I suspect this is another, brewing, blog post.
♠ So, yeah...Years later I see some of wisdom of my advisor. I think he was partly right, in that I should be able to pick up what I need once I get the basic blocks, but I think he was wrong to suggest for me to change major, and I do think that less math, more computer science with applied cases would have been better as a curricular package.
Graduate Teaching Education22-06-2016, 15:44 #digped, #DigPedChat, criticalPedagogy, education, learning, teaching, work
While the DigPedChat on the topic is a month behind us, I am only now getting to it ;-) So, after reading this post by Sean Micheal Morris on Digital Pedagogy I thought I would tackle some of the questions posed for discussion. Feel free to leave a response, or link to your own blog post via comment :-)
What does it mean to perform teaching? What does it mean to perform learning?
These are some pretty complex questions, which makes then juicy topics for discussion! Performing Teaching has looked differently to me depending on where I look at it from, and what my own stage of development has been at a time. As an undergraduate I would tell you that performing teaching looked like a sage on the stage. Preferably TED Talk style where the person is really engaging and he keeps yours attention focused on the subject. In the end, once the experience is complete or concluded you are left with a "wow" feeling. As I've grown, and have been more and more on the doctoral and independent learner end of the spectrum I am not all that certain that the sage on the stage is really what performing teaching is, at least not in all instances of teaching. Teaching can take on a variety of shapes, forms, modes, and means. However, I would say that the result is the same: at the end of a successful teaching performance I am left with a wow aftertaste. I want more. The teaching performance blows me away, fills me up, and leaves me to eagerly anticipate the next learning opportunity. It's fine dining, where at the end of a meal you are full and content, but you foresee coming back to that establishment.
What does it mean to perform learning? I know that the programmed answer is: As an instructional designer the "appropriate" response is that performing learning leads to a measurable change in knowledge, skills, (and/)or attitudes. However, the answer for me, really, is that "it depends". As human beings we never stop learning. There is formal learning that happens in schools and organized venues, or as described the other day by Gardner Campbell this could be called "study", and learning that happens every day. When I drive through an intersection, on my way to work, and there is roadwork happening there that makes me late, I learn that I should avoid that intersection (or leave early). While this is a change in behavior, albeit temporary while the roadwork is happening, no one taught me that. I received some data (sensory, societal, communications, emotional, etc.) and I made decisions based on those factors. The key thing here is that performing teaching and performing learning don't necessarily have to happen in the same spatiotemporal nexus.
What does the role of a student who is also a teacher look like in a college classroom?
I assume that this question is aimed toward doctoral students who are concurrently acting in the capacity of TA (teaching assistant) and are the teachers of record for certain undergraduate courses. However, I think I'll take a more philosophical perspective and say that all teachers are students of something. Even once my doctoral degree is done (and assuming I won't go for a second one) I will still be a student. I will be (hopefully) continuing to conduct research, and read, and write, about topics in my field. I won't necessarily be in a classroom, but I will be a student. That said, I think that we all wear many hats in life, in general. So, in the classroom I can be a teacher, and outside of my classroom I can be a learner. However, I do think that (1) there are many opportunities for us, as instructors, to learn from our own classrooms, through our interactions with our learners, and through observing our learners interact; and (2) it's important to let our learners that we just don't know everything. We are human beings, we tends to focus on things that pique our interests, and while we might know more about a specific topic compared to our learners, we can always learn more about it. Knowledge is not finite, and as such it is important for us to acknowledge that. We, as instructor-learners should be humble in that we don't know everything, and jump at the chance to learn with our learners as situations arise.
Should graduate teachers be made aware of their potential future in the job market? Should they be encouraged to be part of the dialogue of labor practices at the university, the community college, and in their own departments?
Reply Hazy. Try Again. In all seriously though, I think that the actual prognostication of job markets isn't that great. Instead of focusing on future markets which we don't know about (I for one did not think I would be where I am today back when I was an undergraduate student), we should focus on current aspects of the market, and look at those with a critical eye. This means that graduate students, students in education, need to be part of the dialogue that takes place around the labor practices, environment, sustainability, and employability in their related fields. If you are a PhD or EdD student and your goal is to be a professor, tenured, in higher education - you need to know that tenure track jobs don't come up that often (or so it seems to me), that adjuncts appear to be the majority of the workforce, and they are not paid that well. Starting with your own department is not something that I would start with. Perhaps I'd keep it in mind, but depending on how open that department is, it's potentially setting up some bad vibes between the student and the people that have power over you. I am a firm believer in getting done with school first, before risking upsetting mentors (in case mentors are thin skinned). Looking at academia in general, and institution second, would be my way of approaching a dialog over this. No matter how you approach it, a dialog must happen so that people have a five year plan (even if it's hazy). They can't believe that they'll go on the tenure track if there aren't jobs on the tenure track, and we can't - as profession - be saying "Oh, they'll get a job if they are good enough" - because that severely impacts your reputation. Why take someone into your program, and invest the time and energy to mentor them (and take their money) if you don't believe that they are good enough to get a tenure track job? Food for thought.
How can graduate teachers prepare to be pedagogues in non-teaching careers?
That's a good question. I actually don't have an answer for that. My mental gears are turning, and I am thinking of community-based organizations, volunteering, and advocacy options - but I simply don't know at the moment. What do others think?