Online learning

OEB16 musings

by reestheskin on 13/12/2016

Comments are disabled

I went to the OEB meeting for this first time this year. I was not certain how much I would like it, but found it really enjoyable. Not a meeting I would go to each year but, if you are interested in teaching and learning in the broadest sense, it is well worth a visit. I would go again.

One of the sessions I enjoyed most was a fairly small concurrent session with the title ‘The value and the price: discussing Open Online Courses’, chaired by Brian Mulligan (IoT, Sligo), and with panellists Stephen Downes(NRC, Canada), Nina Huntermann (edX), Diana Laurillard (UCL), and KonstantinScheller (European Commission). It was all wonderfully informal, with not too many people there and plenty of time for questions and discussion. I got involved too, rather than just listening. The discussion ranged widely over MOOCs (c or x), online learning, ‘conventional teaching and learning’ and other topics, but that is to be expected. You cannot discuss online learning without thinking about offline learning; you cannot discuss new tech, without discussing old tech; you cannot discuss scale without discussing one-to-one; you cannot discuss value without talking about money and non-money.

I didn’t take notes but the thoughts going round in my head (prompted no doubt by the panel were):

  • You cannot hide from the question of value. You can think about this is terms of money, time, inner wealth or job prospects, but the calculus has to exist somewhere. If the learning takes place in an institution that performs other tasks and has other goals (research, outreach, engagement, certification), this value has to be factored somewhere. Cross subsidies will be under challenge, whether they are they are sensible, or not. Sensible for whom?
  • I am, to use somebody else’s phrase, a libertarian paternalist when it comes to higher education. I really do think I can guide people through difficult terrain. But putting glorious autodidacts to one side, to what extent do many students need coaches, and under what conditions. The answer, at least in some of the domains I know about, is far less than we like to think. And, those who require least guidance are, in many senses, those we want most.
  • Content. What is the content, how is it presented, how does it hang together, how tested is it, how has it been curated, how personal is it? I will start ranting about this soon, so I will shut up now. Except to say, it is not a rant: this is so important.
  • How important is place? Where is the community? How do you maximise the sense of place?
  • How do you balance private study with communal learning. What is the right balance, and how does the answer influence costs?
  • I can see differences between MOOCs and other forms of non-institutional learning, but only of degree. Penguin books, and BBC OU broadcasts were open to many of us, and used by many of us. But they only allowed local conversations, rather than networked learning. We can — or at least –could do a lot more now.

“Did you know that this is the 30th anniversary of the very first fully online course?” –

Via Tony Bates.

 

The three laws of elearning failure

by reestheskin on 22/12/2015

Comments are disabled

I like these from Marc Rosenberg (via Stephen Downes)

  1. Great eLearning technology combined with bad content results in more efficiently delivered bad content.
  2. eLearning that is compensation for bad documentation, tools, processes, or management will ultimately prove to be a waste of time and money.
  3. When great eLearning comes up against a lousy learning culture, the culture wins every time.

Stephen Downes comments: ‘Essentially they are restatements of one of the oldest laws of computing: garbage in, garbage out (GIGO)’.