Blended learning meets MOOCs: Education's Digital Future
1. Blended Learning Meets MOOCs:
Education’s Digital Future
presentation at the CUNY IT Conference
December 2013
Anthony G. Picciano
CUNY Graduate Center
5. Blended Learning Conceptualization
Blended
Conventional
Face to Face
Classroom
Fully
Online
Source: Picciano, A.G, & Dzuiban, C. (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA:
The Sloan Consortium.http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/index.asp
6. Blended Learning Conceptualization
Minimal Technology/Media
Students meet online teacher uses simple
technology such as
CMS, electronic
bulletin boards.
Students meet f2f
– teacher uses
simple technology
such as email, or
web for e-lectures.
Blended
Blended
Conventional
Face to Face
Classroom
Fully Online
Students meet f2f – Blended
teacher uses
technology such as
simulations, tutorials,
digital video.
Blended
Technology/Media Infused
Students meet online –
teacher uses multiple
asynchronous and
synchronous technology
such blogs,wikis and
interactive
videoconferencing
7. Blending with Pedagogical Purpose: A Multimodal Model
Content
(LMS/CMS/Media/
Reflection
Games/MUVE)
Social/Emotional
(F2F)
(Blog,Journal)
Blending with
Purpose
Collaboration/Student
Generated Content
(Wiki, Mobile Tech) Synthesis/ Evaluation
(Assignments/Assessment)
Papers, Tests, Student
Presentations (PPT,
Youtube), E-Portfolios
Source: Picciano (2009).
Dialectic/Questioning
(Discussion Board)
8. Blending with Purpose – The Multimodal Model
Content
(LMS/CMS/Media/
Games/MUVE)
Reflection
Social/Emotional
(F2F)
(Blog,Journal)
Blended
Ecosystem
Dialectic/Questioning
Collaboration/Student
Generated Content
(Wiki, Mobile Tech)
(Discussion Board)
Synthesis/ Evaluation
(Assignments/Assessment)
Papers, Tests, Student
Presentations (PPT,
Youtube), E-Portfolios
9. Blended Learning as Ecosystem
As blended learning matures and develops, it is
evolving into a seamless, organic environment or ecosystem
It is the artful design of a teaching and learning experience that
leverages instruction, technology, administrative and support
services, into a natural experience for learner and teacher.
9
10. Enter the MOOCs – Massive Open Online Courses
.The term MOOC is used for the first time in 2008 at
the U. of Manitoba.
.Sebastian Thrun offers a MOOC in 2011 at Stanford University
and 160,000 students enroll.
.MOOC consortia/companies (Udacity, edX, Coursera) are
formed.
.Millions of students are now enrolling every year in MOOCs.
10
11. MOOCs - Pros and Cons!
Pros
Worldwide student access
Cons
Taking a course is not
equivalent to an education
to courses and materials
Scalability will drive
down higher education costs
Convenience for adults/
Some MOOCs are poorly
designed and lack
substantive interaction
High attrition rates (as much
as 90%)
Financial sustainability
(most MOOCs are free).
11
12. The Future of Technology
- Easy to Get it Wrong!
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
– Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
– Ken Olson, Chairman Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"640K ought to be enough memory for anybody."
– Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft, 1981
12
13. The Future – Higher Education
Source: U.S. Department of Education - NCES (January 2013). Projections of Education Statistics to 2021.
13
14. Non-Traditional Students are Now Traditional!
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” Spring 2010; Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Model, 1970–2020; and U.S. Department
of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, "Social and Economic Characteristics of Students," various years.
14
15. The Future - One Size Does Not Fit All!
.Different strokes for different folks.
.Different types of schools will approach
Online and Blended Learning and MOOCs differently.
.Different programs/disciplines/courses will approach
Online and Blended Learning and MOOCs differently.
.Different students will approach
Online and Blended Learning and MOOCs differently.
15
16. The Future – Allen & Seaman Survey of
Chief Academic Officers (N=2,820)
2012 survey finds only 2.6 percent report they currently offer MOOCs and slightly less than
ten percent (9.4%) have plans to offer them.
Source: Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013).
16
17. The Future – MOOCs -> Blended Cs
.San Jose State University entered into an agreement with Udacity to
develop remedial and introductory courses (2013-2016).
.Courses were limited to 300 students.
.Tuition was $150. per course.
.Provision for faculty involvement in a blended format.
.Efforts will be made to overcome the biggest failure of MOOCs
— their 90 percent dropout rate.
17
18. Preliminary Evaluation – Spring Semester
Source: Collins, E.D. (2013). Preliminary Summary SJSA+ Augmented Online Learning Environment Pilot Project.
Note: MATH 6L - Remedial algebra survey course
MATH 8L - Introduction to college-level algebra
STAT 95 - Introduction to college-level statistics
19. The Future!
.Put part of the course (i.e., lecture) in online/MOOC environment
.Put discussion/interaction part of the course in a f2f or blended
environment.
19
22. References
Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States.
Wellesley, MA: Babson College Survey Research Group.
Knowles, M., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R. (1998). The adult learner. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lin, L., Cranton, P., & Bridglall, B. (2005). Psychological Type and Asynchronous Written Dialogue in Adult
Learning.
Teachers College Record Volume 107 Number 8, 2005, p. 1788-1813
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12096, Date Accessed: 1/25/2008 3:15:54 PM
Picciano, A.G. & Dzuiban, C. (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: The Sloan
Consortium.
Picciano, A.G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Center for
Educational Technology, 5(1). Kent, Oh: Kent State University.
U.S. Department of Education - NCES (January 2013). Projections of Education Statistics to 2012.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF:94–99), and Spring 2001 through Spring 2009; Enrollment in DegreeGranting Institutions Model, 1980–2008; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population
Reports, "Social and Economic Characteristics of Students," various years. (This table was prepared February
2010.)
22
23. The Future
When examined by Carnegie classification, it is the research universities (Doctoral/
Research institutions) that are in the lead. They are almost twice as likely to be
offering MOOCs or planning to offer MOOCs (9.8% vs. the next highest of 4.5%
for Specialized institutions in offerings and 21.4% vs. the next highest of 11.8% for
Master’s level institutions for planning).
Source: Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013).
23
24. The Future
Overall, academic leaders are split in their opinions about MOOCs as a sustainable
method for offering courses with 27.8 percent agreeing, 27.0 percent disagreeing,
and most Chief Academic Officers (45.2%) neutral.
Source: Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013).
24
Notas do Editor
The above model incorporates approaches/possibilities that require writing about one’s ideas, thoughts, and positions or as Michel Foucault would say writing to show one’s self. This is an incredibly powerful pedagogical technique that is a fundamental basis for teaching and learning in online learning environments especially via the ALN model.
Incorporate Michel Foucault’s of Writing for Self into the Powerpoint Presentation:
Foucault regards writing as a form of meditation and sees this as proceeding in two different ways:
The first is linear, where the work of thought and working through writing takes one to work through reality. The second is the reflexive function of writing…to write is thus “to show oneself, male oneself seen, make one’s face appear before the other. Reading is also implied by the practice of the self.”
Murphy, M. (2013). Social Theory and education research. London: Routledge. p. 29.
Foucault, M. (1997b). Writing for self. In Foucault and his interlocutors, ed., A Davidson. Chicago: Chicago University Press. p. 243
Udacity established by Sebastian Thrun and colleagues from Stanford
edX established by M.I.T. and Harvard
Coursera – consortium of over 30 universities (Feb. 2013) are members.
Compared to the Blended Model, I would argue that the MOOC is fundamentally a scalability model not a pedagogical model.
The increased enrollment since 1996 is in part due to the large-scale entry of for-profit colleges into the higher education market.
The American higher education system is made up of a multitude of institutions from community colleges that have done an incredible job of providing access to an education but struggle mightily with graduation rates to research universities and medical schools that are the envy of every country in the world. We have for-profits, not-for profits, private, public, and religious-affiliated schools. No one size will fit all. Furthermore, the students who attend these institutions are different also. The student who is 18 years old, who attends an Ivy Leagues school and scores in the 90 percentile her/his SATs and aspires to go to law school upon graduation is not the same student who might be 35 years old who attends a community college, who needs to take remedial courses in basic skills and hope to be a dental assistant.
Summit held this past Monday in Cambridge and sponsored by MIT and Harvard.
The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting on a private summit held in Cambridage, Massachusetts, on Monday and sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, at which many of online education's heaviest hitters discussed the future of residential higher education, particularly at elite institutions, in a digital age.
The article comments:
“while online education may have arrived at the upper echelons of higher education, it's not going to make elite colleges any cheaper to attend. Massive open online courses and other online tools, however, may change many aspects of top undergraduate campuses. That was the conclusion of a private summit, After years of standing by while the online wave gathered momentum at lower-tier institutions, MIT and Harvard last year gave online education a $60-million bear hug by collaborating to found edX, a nonprofit MOOC provider that could also serve as a laboratory for studying the dynamics of virtual classrooms. The universities made it clear then that they intended to use their MOOCs to improve, not supplant, traditional courses.
Furthermore,
“Some attempts to use MOOCs to improve the experience of traditional students have not panned out. One panelist said early attempts at his university to foster interaction between learners in the traditional and MOOC versions of a course met with resistance from the tuition-paying students, who wanted a distinct experience for their money.
Those students may eventually come around, but the amount they are paying for a traditional college experience probably will not—at least not at top colleges. None of the institutions represented at the summit is likely to use any revenue or savings from the use of online tools to lower tuition, said one provost. No one at the session disagreed.
It's more likely that online tools will be used to increase value at the same price, said another provost. That means more seminars, more project-based courses, and more mentorship opportunities, he said.”
Taking another view was William G. Bowen, the former president of Princeton University, who:
“reminded the audience that they occupied "really rarefied air" in deciding how they might want to use online education.
But professors who are serious about reaching the masses online, he said, will have to think about innovation and design with a broader, more diverse audience in mind.
"I would humbly suggest that the kinds of assessment and standards and all the rest that I'm sure are appropriate at MIT and Harvard and so forth," Mr. Bowen said, "have very little relevance for the large parts of American higher education, particularly in the state systems, that are under genuine siege."
Tony
http://chronicle.com/article/Online-Education-May-Make-Top/137687/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Allen & Seaman Annual Survey of Chief Academic Officers – For 2012 - 4,527 institutions were surveyed; total of 2,820 responded were
included in the analysis, representing 62.3 percent of the sample universe.
This year’s survey finds only 2.6 percent report they currently
offer MOOCs and slightly less than ten percent (9.4%)
have plans to offer them. An additional one-third
of all institutions report they have no plans for
adding MOOCs (32.7%), leaving the bulk of all
institutions (55.4%) still undecided. Matching the
pattern of offerings of online courses and
programs over the last ten years, it is the public
universities that currently have the higher rates of
offering MOOCs (4.7%) and the private, for profit
schools are most likely to be in the planning stages (15.0%).
Remedial algebra survey course (Math 6L);
Introduction to college-level algebra (Math 8);
Introduction to college-level statistics (Stat 95).
What I have presented sees Blended Learning and MOOCs as the future for the next 7-10 years. Just as we saw an expansion of large lecture halls at American colleges and universities in the late 1970s and 1980s, we will see the expansion of blended learning/MOOCs.
It occurred to us that asynchronous written dialogue is just as rich and as evolved a communication art form as verbal discourse, which was analyzed by Goffman (1967) and Gumperz (1982) in detail from a sociological perspective. The notion that written interactive dialogue can be an effective learning opportunity for adults is supported by the hypothesis of Davydov (1990), who proposed that conceptualization must come before visualization in human thought and meaning making, and by Vygotsky (1978), who suggested that conceptualization comes better through writing than speaking. A simple example of such a conceptualization process can be seen in our daily lives. Sometimes when we want to concentrate on our thoughts and try to articulate accurately what we really think, we lower our head or break our eye contact from others because the visual eye contact becomes a distraction rather than stimulation of an attentive thought. Only when we have completed forming the thought do we feel the satisfaction of the eye contact in the dialogue. This hypothesis is also intriguing because oftentimes, we try to concretize and visualize a subject matter to help people learn. Yet we are also familiar with instances when concrete or visual objects limit our imaginations, and we sometimes must distance ourselves from them in order to acquire a more flexible and in-depth understanding of the subject matter.
In addition, Vygotsky (1962) pointed out that one of the difficulties that a learner has in writing is that he or she addresses “an absent or an imaginary person or no one in particular” and thus has no motivation or feels no need to write, whereas in oral conversation “every sentence is prompted by a motive” (p. 99). We can probably all recall a difficult experience writing an essay or book report in school. However, the writing is different in the online learning environment. The writing is usually intended for a finite number of participants and with particular purposes; the writing becomes a tool for exchanging information, interacting with the others, and challenging opinions among a group of learners.
The dialectic and complex relationships between visualization and conceptualization, between spoken and written languages discussed by Davydov and Vygotsky provide us with food for thought when we look into how adults learn through online asynchronous written dialogue.
As we become accustomed to the use of many different channels for communication (such as face-to-face, regular mail, phone, cell phone, video-teleconference, email, blog, wiki, and chat), the paradigm becomes not necessarily one of obvious downgrading of preferences, but rather one of availability, convenience, and effectiveness, as long as both parties are equipped with the tools. As a result, we flex to the channel that is available or often open two or more channels at once: simultaneously surf online, chat through instant messenger, and talk on the phone. In these formats, learners do not currently enjoy many of the basic characteristics of copresence such as being able to see body language or facial expressions or hear the intonations in the voice, as highlighted by Boden and Molotch's “compulsion of proximity” (1994, p. 258). However, there are distinct advantages of communicating through asynchronous written dialogue (Lin & Cranton, 2004; Yoon, 2003). Some include:
• Allowing the writer to clarify thoughts before stating his or her points
• Allowing participants to review previous dialogues, examine what has been said, make new discoveries, and share their meanings in a deeper and clearer way
• Allowing time for participants to support a point of view with new or compelling information through various resources including the Internet
• Allowing for reflection
Although these points highlight only a few benefits of learning through asynchronous written dialogue, they invite reflection on how the online environment influences traditional practices. When moving from a physical to a virtual space, the learners are subject to a change in context as well as a change in the principles and premises of being and acting.
Lin, L., Cranton, P., & Bridglall, B. (2005). Psychological Type and Asynchronous Written Dialogue in Adult Learning.
Teachers College Record Volume 107 Number 8, 2005, p. 1788-1813http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12096, Date Accessed: 1/25/2008 3:15:54 PM
Copy kept as Adult Learning in CUNY ITP Folder
Specialized schools according to the Carnegie Classification – medical schools, law schools, schools of engineering (i.e., Cooper Union)
When examined by Carnegie classification, it is the research universities (Doctoral/
Research institutions) that are in the lead. They are almost twice as likely to be
offering MOOCs or planning to offer MOOCs (9.8% vs. the next highest of 4.5%
for Specialized institutions in offerings and 21.4% vs. the next highest of 11.8% for
Master’s level institutions for planning).
Allen & Seaman Annual Survey of Chief Academic Officers – For 2012 - 4,527 institutions were surveyed; total of 2,820 responded were
included in the analysis, representing 62.3 percent of the sample universe.
This year’s survey finds only 2.6 percent report they currently
offer MOOCs and slightly less than ten percent (9.4%)
have plans to offer them. An additional one-third
of all institutions report they have no plans for
adding MOOCs (32.7%), leaving the bulk of all
institutions (55.4%) still undecided. Matching the
pattern of offerings of online courses and
programs over the last ten years, it is the public
universities that currently have the higher rates of
offering MOOCs (4.7%) and the private, for profit
schools are most likely to be in the planning stages (15.0%).
