Feed aggregator

Ian Dolphin is returning from a trip to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong.

Jill Fresen has sent me this: Every member of Oxford University has their own personal ‘cloud’ in WebLearn, called ‘My Workspace’. You can enter your contact details, upload your photo into your profile, and make connections with other WebLearn users. You also have a personal file storage area (max 100 Mb) which you can use to back up files, access them from any other computer, or build a personal web page. Come along to the Learn at Work day session entitled “WebLearn: An online space for learning and collaboration” at IT Services, 13 Banbury Road on 23 May 2013 from 3:00 to 4:00 pm. More information and bookings at: http://courses.it.ox.ac.uk/detail/TLW12

Jill Fresen has sent me this:

Every member of Oxford University has their own personal ‘cloud’ in WebLearn, called ‘My Workspace’. You can enter your contact details, upload your photo into your profile, and make connections with other WebLearn users. You also have a personal file storage area (max 100 Mb) which you can use to back up files, access them from any other computer, or build a personal web page.

Come along to the Learn at Work day session entitled “WebLearn: An online space for learning and collaboration” at IT Services, 13 Banbury Road on 23 May 2013 from 3:00 to 4:00 pm.

More information and bookings at: http://courses.it.ox.ac.uk/detail/TLW12

This is going to be a more personal blog post than I typically make here at e-Literate. The open letter from San José State University’s philosophy department in protest of the edX JusticeX course being taught at SJSU is getting a lot of attention, as is the follow-up statement from the SJSU faculty senate. I have some concerns with both of these letters—particularly the one from the philosophy department—but before I get into them, I’d like to emphasize my points of agreement and solidarity with the department: As a former philosophy major and a former teacher of philosophy courses to seventh and eighth graders, I strongly believe that a course in social justice is critical to every American’s education. I also strongly agree that, in order for such a course to be effective, it must be up-to-date, relevant to the students, and involve in-depth facilitated discussion. I agree that there is a bit of a bait-and-switch going on, possibly unintentionally, with the rhetoric about MOOCs providing superior pedagogy over lecture classes (which is probably somewhat true) and then moving to swap out discussion classes for MOOCs instead. I agree that some MOOC fans (though by no means all of them) have simplistic notions of how MOOCs can make university education cheaper without thinking through the consequences either to the quality of education or the fiscal health of the colleges and universities that still provide tremendous value to our nation and our culture. I agree that intellectual diversity is very important, particularly when discussing complex issues that are essential to a functioning democracy, and that the potential for an intellectual monoculture is a concern worth taking very seriously. While I have no knowledge of the negotiations between edX and SJSU, I strongly agree that such partnerships should be conceived and implemented with active consultation and collaboration with faculty unless there is exceptionally strong justification to do otherwise. Despite all this common ground on values that are dear to me, I find aspects of the department’s letter to be deeply problematic. To begin with, there is this: Good quality online courses and blended courses (to which we have no objections) do not save money, but pre-packaged ones do, and a lot. That statement is demonstrably false. Good quality online courses and blended courses can, in fact, save money. How do we know? For starters, the National Center for Academic Transformation has a long list of course redesign projects they have been doing in collaboration with colleges in universities since 1999, many of which have achieved substantial cost savings. And some of them actually achieved substantial improvement in outcomes while achieving substantial cost savings. Nor is NCAT alone. There is a growing body of empirically backed academic literature showing that we can teach more students more effectively for less money across a variety of subjects. Some subjects are easier to redesign than others. But cost savings in high-quality courses is possible as a general proposition (and does not require open content licensing, by the way). The SJSU philosophy department’s blanket denial of this possibility is not credible. As a result, the authors of the letter are also less credible when they write, In addition to providing students with an opportunity to engage with active scholars, expertise in the physical classroom, sensitivity to its diversity, and familiarity with one’s own students is just not available in a one-size-fits-all blended course produced by an outside vendor….When a university such as ours purchases a course from an outside vendor, the faculty cannot control the design or content of the course; therefore we cannot develop and teach content that fits with our overall curriculum and is based on both our own highly developed and continuously renewed competence and our direct experience of our students’ abilities and needs. There appears to be a significant disconnect here. On the one hand, the department argues (correctly, in my view) that philosophy students gain great benefit from “the opportunity to engage with active scholars.” On the other hand, they assert that the philosophy department has “expertise in the physical classroom” and a “highly developed and continuously renewed competence” despite the overwhelming likelihood that most of the faculty have not had significant opportunities to engage with active scholars in pedagogy-related fields. They could have made their case just as effectively without foreclosing the possibility of improving on what they already do. As the letter from the SJSU Faculty Association notes in response to the improved completion rates of the edX course, The pedagogical infrastructure and work that has gone into the preparation of the edX material could easily be replicated if SJSU made a commitment to pedagogy and made training in pedagogy central to all faculty. This is a defensible argument that the philosophy department could have made. But it didn’t. Instead, it implicitly denied the existence of the scholarship of teaching and explicitly blamed the university’s financial issues on “industry” for “demanding that public universities devote their resources to providing ready-made employees, while at the same time…resisting paying the taxes that support public education.” The collective effect of these rhetorical moves is to absolve the department of all responsibility for addressing the real problems the university is facing. By ignoring the scholarship of teaching, the department missed an opportunity to engage the MOOC question in a different way. Rather than thinking of MOOCs as products to be bought or rejected, they could have approached them as experiments in teaching methods that can be validated, refuted, or refined through the collective efforts of a scholarly community. Researchers collaborate across university boundaries all the time. The same can be true in the scholarship of teaching. The faculty could have demanded access to the edX data and the freedom to adjust the course design. The letter authors seem deeply invested in positioning the edX course as something that is locked down from a third-party commercial vendor. But in reality, the edX course is developed by a faculty member and provided by a university-based non-profit entity. Perhaps the department felt that there wasn’t sufficient opportunity in this particular course design to make a request to have a collaboration worthwhile. But their rhetoric gives no indication that there is any room for such exploration under any circumstances, or indeed that the department has anything to learn about use of educational technology that could lead to either improved outcomes or lower costs. Equally disturbing is the tendency in both letters to dismiss the fiscal crisis as something caused solely by greedy capitalists. It’s worth requoting the earlier referenced comment from the philosophy department letter here: Industry is demanding that public universities devote their resources to providing ready-made employees, while at the same time they are resisting paying the taxes that support public education. To begin with, “industry” isn’t alone in demanding that public universities devote their resources to producing employable graduates. Students and their parents are asking for it too, as are individual human taxpayers. On this last point, I am not a Californian, but I understand that individual human taxpayers have an unusually direct say regarding tax rates in the state of California. The purpose of education as a public good is a serious and complicated question that deserves more careful treatment from people who should know better. Nor are taxes the only issue. While it is true that there has been progressive defunding of public colleges and universities in the United States, it is also true that tuition costs have been rising dramatically across the country in private as well as public schools. And it is true that the public colleges and universities in California in particular are struggling with unanticipated swelling enrollments as they strive to meet the as-yet-unfulfilled moral imperative of universal access to education. Given all of this, it is not a morally defensible position to simply point the finger at the rich guys and say, “It’s their fault. Make them fix it.” To the degree that course redesign can positively impact student access to education, faculty have a moral obligation to be leading the charge. And from a strategic perspective, they are more likely to prevent dumb ideas—such as gutting quality residential education in favor of least-common-denominator, video-driven xMOOCs—from taking hold. But perhaps the worst aspect of the simplistic finger pointing is the way in which it pollutes the civic discourse. It encourages individual stakeholders to harden into an “us vs. them” position that reduces the likelihood of citizens coming together to solve real, hard problems that are deeply intwined with issues of social justice. Here’s an example of a comment made on this blog in response to a post about the California SB 520 bill: Remember that when the Nazis led the people into the gas chamber they told them that it was a refreshing shower after a long train ride. Do not be fooled! This sweet sounding bill is the gas chamber of good education in California. Once we are in the questions will be pointless. As the pellets drop we will realize we should have questioned things sooner. Setting aside the fact that the only justifiable use of genocide as an analogy is when talking about another genocide, this kind of rhetoric is enormously damaging to the possibility of a productive dialectic regarding how to solve the very real and complicated problems that our system of higher education faces, including both the need to increase access and the complexities of funding that imperative. And, sadly, this comment was written by a member of the SJSU philosophy department. The post Political Philosophy appeared first on e-Literate.

This is going to be a more personal blog post than I typically make here at e-Literate.

The open letter from San José State University’s philosophy department in protest of the edX JusticeX course being taught at SJSU is getting a lot of attention, as is the follow-up statement from the SJSU faculty senate. I have some concerns with both of these letters—particularly the one from the philosophy department—but before I get into them, I’d like to emphasize my points of agreement and solidarity with the department:

• As a former philosophy major and a former teacher of philosophy courses to seventh and eighth graders, I strongly believe that a course in social justice is critical to every American’s education.
• I also strongly agree that, in order for such a course to be effective, it must be up-to-date, relevant to the students, and involve in-depth facilitated discussion.
• I agree that there is a bit of a bait-and-switch going on, possibly unintentionally, with the rhetoric about MOOCs providing superior pedagogy over lecture classes (which is probably somewhat true) and then moving to swap out discussion classes for MOOCs instead.
• I agree that some MOOC fans (though by no means all of them) have simplistic notions of how MOOCs can make university education cheaper without thinking through the consequences either to the quality of education or the fiscal health of the colleges and universities that still provide tremendous value to our nation and our culture.
• I agree that intellectual diversity is very important, particularly when discussing complex issues that are essential to a functioning democracy, and that the potential for an intellectual monoculture is a concern worth taking very seriously.
• While I have no knowledge of the negotiations between edX and SJSU, I strongly agree that such partnerships should be conceived and implemented with active consultation and collaboration with faculty unless there is exceptionally strong justification to do otherwise.

Despite all this common ground on values that are dear to me, I find aspects of the department’s letter to be deeply problematic.

To begin with, there is this:

Good quality online courses and blended courses (to which we have no objections) do not save money, but pre-packaged ones do, and a lot.

That statement is demonstrably false. Good quality online courses and blended courses can, in fact, save money. How do we know? For starters, the National Center for Academic Transformation has a long list of course redesign projects they have been doing in collaboration with colleges in universities since 1999, many of which have achieved substantial cost savings. And some of them actually achieved substantial improvement in outcomes while achieving substantial cost savings. Nor is NCAT alone. There is a growing body of empirically backed academic literature showing that we can teach more students more effectively for less money across a variety of subjects. Some subjects are easier to redesign than others. But cost savings in high-quality courses is possible as a general proposition (and does not require open content licensing, by the way). The SJSU philosophy department’s blanket denial of this possibility is not credible.

As a result, the authors of the letter are also less credible when they write,

In addition to providing students with an opportunity to engage with active scholars, expertise in the physical classroom, sensitivity to its diversity, and familiarity with one’s own students is just not available in a one-size-fits-all blended course produced by an outside vendor….When a university such as ours purchases a course from an outside vendor, the faculty cannot control the design or content of the course; therefore we cannot develop and teach content that fits with our overall curriculum and is based on both our own highly developed and continuously renewed competence and our direct experience of our students’ abilities and needs.

There appears to be a significant disconnect here. On the one hand, the department argues (correctly, in my view) that philosophy students gain great benefit from “the opportunity to engage with active scholars.” On the other hand, they assert that the philosophy department has “expertise in the physical classroom” and a “highly developed and continuously renewed competence” despite the overwhelming likelihood that most of the faculty have not had significant opportunities to engage with active scholars in pedagogy-related fields.

They could have made their case just as effectively without foreclosing the possibility of improving on what they already do. As the letter from the SJSU Faculty Association notes in response to the improved completion rates of the edX course,

The pedagogical infrastructure and work that has gone into the preparation of the edX material could easily be replicated if SJSU made a commitment to pedagogy and made training in pedagogy central to all faculty.

This is a defensible argument that the philosophy department could have made. But it didn’t. Instead, it implicitly denied the existence of the scholarship of teaching and explicitly blamed the university’s financial issues on “industry” for “demanding that public universities devote their resources to providing ready-made employees, while at the same time…resisting paying the taxes that support public education.” The collective effect of these rhetorical moves is to absolve the department of all responsibility for addressing the real problems the university is facing.

By ignoring the scholarship of teaching, the department missed an opportunity to engage the MOOC question in a different way. Rather than thinking of MOOCs as products to be bought or rejected, they could have approached them as experiments in teaching methods that can be validated, refuted, or refined through the collective efforts of a scholarly community. Researchers collaborate across university boundaries all the time. The same can be true in the scholarship of teaching. The faculty could have demanded access to the edX data and the freedom to adjust the course design. The letter authors seem deeply invested in positioning the edX course as something that is locked down from a third-party commercial vendor. But in reality, the edX course is developed by a faculty member and provided by a university-based non-profit entity. Perhaps the department felt that there wasn’t sufficient opportunity in this particular course design to make a request to have a collaboration worthwhile. But their rhetoric gives no indication that there is any room for such exploration under any circumstances, or indeed that the department has anything to learn about use of educational technology that could lead to either improved outcomes or lower costs.

Equally disturbing is the tendency in both letters to dismiss the fiscal crisis as something caused solely by greedy capitalists. It’s worth requoting the earlier referenced comment from the philosophy department letter here:

Industry is demanding that public universities devote their resources to providing ready-made employees, while at the same time they are resisting paying the taxes that support public education.

To begin with, “industry” isn’t alone in demanding that public universities devote their resources to producing employable graduates. Students and their parents are asking for it too, as are individual human taxpayers. On this last point, I am not a Californian, but I understand that individual human taxpayers have an unusually direct say regarding tax rates in the state of California. The purpose of education as a public good is a serious and complicated question that deserves more careful treatment from people who should know better.

Nor are taxes the only issue. While it is true that there has been progressive defunding of public colleges and universities in the United States, it is also true that tuition costs have been rising dramatically across the country in private as well as public schools. And it is true that the public colleges and universities in California in particular are struggling with unanticipated swelling enrollments as they strive to meet the as-yet-unfulfilled moral imperative of universal access to education. Given all of this, it is not a morally defensible position to simply point the finger at the rich guys and say, “It’s their fault. Make them fix it.” To the degree that course redesign can positively impact student access to education, faculty have a moral obligation to be leading the charge. And from a strategic perspective, they are more likely to prevent dumb ideas—such as gutting quality residential education in favor of least-common-denominator, video-driven xMOOCs—from taking hold.

But perhaps the worst aspect of the simplistic finger pointing is the way in which it pollutes the civic discourse. It encourages individual stakeholders to harden into an “us vs. them” position that reduces the likelihood of citizens coming together to solve real, hard problems that are deeply intwined with issues of social justice. Here’s an example of a comment made on this blog in response to a post about the California SB 520 bill:

Remember that when the Nazis led the people into the gas chamber they told them that it was a refreshing shower after a long train ride. Do not be fooled! This sweet sounding bill is the gas chamber of good education in California. Once we are in the questions will be pointless. As the pellets drop we will realize we should have questioned things sooner.

Setting aside the fact that the only justifiable use of genocide as an analogy is when talking about another genocide, this kind of rhetoric is enormously damaging to the possibility of a productive dialectic regarding how to solve the very real and complicated problems that our system of higher education faces, including both the need to increase access and the complexities of funding that imperative. And, sadly, this comment was written by a member of the SJSU philosophy department.

The post Political Philosophy appeared first on e-Literate.

So MindTap just won a CODiE award for “Best Post-secondary Personalized Learning Solution.” In and of itself, this isn’t a big deal. No offense intended to current or prior winners, but the CODiEs often feel like awards for “Best Instant Coffee” or “Best New Technology Product by an Important Sponsor of Our Awards Program.” They’re not exactly signals of breakthrough educational product design. But I’m glad that the award was given in this case because I think MindTap does represent an important innovation that addresses some of the trends that we’ve been blogging about here at e-Literate (which was one of the reasons that I was enticed to work on MindTap at Cengage for a while). MindTap is not a “personalized learning solution.” While it does allow students to do things like integrate their Evernote accounts and choose whether they want to read or listen to texts, the level of personalization for the learners is not terribly different from other products on the market. (And it certainly is nowhere near as radical as the vision for a Personalized Learning Environment which came from the UK’s JISC and elsewhere, and from which terms like “personalized learning solution” and “personalized learning experience” have been bastardized). Nor are there adaptive analytics or other sorts of machine-driven personalization in the product at this time. Rather, the key differentiator in the current incarnation of MindTap is the way in which it creates a more refined and complete learning experience out of the box while still enabling faculty to customize those experiences to the needs of their students in pretty significant and, in some cases, new ways. This is exactly where the textbook, LMS, and MOOC markets are all headed, and MindTap got there first. The Problem to be Solved In order to understand the value of a product like MindTap, it’s important to understand where textbook publishers do and do not compete. You’re not going to see a lot of MindTap-style products for courses like “Advanced Topics in International Trade Policy,” “Research in Genetics,” “Greek Film,” or “Intermediate Killer Shark Genre.” These smaller courses are relatively uninteresting to textbook publishers because they don’t have the scale necessary to generate significant revenues, and they are also better suited to hand-crafted course designs that are tailored to the strengths of the particular professor doing the teaching and can be highly tailored to the needs and interests of the students in the class. Rather, the courses in question are more like “Introduction to Psychology,” “General Biology I,” “Microeconomics,” or “Survey of Western Civilization.” (English Composition is an anomaly in this categorization because of the way it is taught.) These courses are generally taught in large lecture halls with little or no writing—and when there is writing, it is often graded quickly on a narrow range of criteria by overworked graduate students—and relatively generic syllabi (particularly in non-elite institutions). A lot of the heated debate over whether college is “broken” revolves around these sorts of classes without ever explicitly defining the scope of the problem. Those who say school is broken and need to be disrupted tend to argue as if all college courses are giant, boring lecture courses. Those who argue against the “school is broken” meme tend to characterize these large lecture-centric courses as exceptions. Neither characterization is entirely accurate. On one hand, there are huge swaths of courses in just about any college catalog that are not large lecture courses. On the other hand, because the large lecture courses are concentrated in core curriculum and core major classes, most students have to take a handful of these courses in order to graduate. Regardless of how pervasive or rare you think these courses are, everybody seems to agree that they are not terribly effective. But what should be done about the problem? Shrinking the class size is simply not going to happen, given both budget realities and the moral imperative to increase access to education. And yet, the current situation is bad not only for the students but also for the instructors. Keep in mind that the people teaching these survey courses are disproportionately either junior faculty who are doing all kinds of other duties to earn tenure or adjuncts who are working unreasonable course loads just to make ends meet. They generally don’t have a lot of time to either carefully craft a course or give students a lot of (or any) individual attention. They often have little choice but to take what the publisher is giving them as their course outline and run with it. In and of itself, the direct adoption of a publisher’s curriculum isn’t necessarily bad for many of these courses. The whole idea of a core course is that it helps all students getting a particular degree or a particular major to master certain competencies that they should have. There is a strong argument for consistency of curriculum across core courses. But the current situation neither guarantees consistency of curriculum nor saves the instructor time for either thoughtful customization of the curriculum or any other purpose. There is still a lot of hand assembly required to pull together reading assignments, assessments, slides and lecture notes, and so on. It is generally not a creative process because there is little time for creativity, but it is nevertheless a labor-intensive process and one that is prone to introduce variation in hitting those core competencies without any checks or even necessarily a lot of reflection on it. A Better Compromise If instructors are going to adopt a third-party course curriculum anyway, then we should at least use technology to remove the hand assembly. Why not provide the readings, multimedia, assignments and assessments, neatly integrated with a basic syllabus, into one ready-to-use digital package for the students? At its most basic, this is what “courseware” is and what MindTap does. It provides students and instructors with a ready-to-go complete course structure with all the materials and assessments placed in a logical and easily navigable order. Joel Spolsky once defined poor user interface design as forcing users to make choices that they don’t care about. That is also an apt description for 80% of the pre-semester course preparation process that instructors go through with these big survey courses. Pre-assembling the elements of the vanilla version of the course frees up the instructors’ time to focus on the customizations that they actually do care about. To begin with, the course structure is already assembled and visible, which makes it easier for the instructor to think about its total shape. Removing unwanted content or changing content order is trivially easy, making the roughing in of the course structure very quick. But things get really interesting when you start looking at adding to the learning path structure in MindTap rather than just moving or deleting things. In ed tech discussions, we tend to talk about APIs as if the main differentiation is having them versus not having them. Can you or can you not integrate Google Docs into a course? But in reality, the specifics of the integration can make an enormous difference in how practically useful the added functionality is to teachers and students. Do you want to make a folder of your documents (like your syllabus) available to the students at all times in the course with one or two clicks, or do you want to insert your own supplemental document right into the course reading, zero clicks away for the student and on their default navigation path? These two types of integration serve fundamentally different purposes in the course. In MindTap, you can do both and more. And importantly, making these different customizations is intuitive and almost trivially easy. Radical customization of the course structure is very much possible. But both because there is far less instructor time wasted with hand assembly of course elements and because customizations are visible and visualizable in the learning path structure, the percentage of time spent on meaningful instructional activities, whether that’s course customization or student interaction, is likely to be higher. For this reason, the MindApp model and the learning path structure are MindTap’s crown jewels. Table Stakes Of course, MindTap doesn’t have a monopoly on useful courseware platform design. For example, WileyPLUS enables instructors to see which course materials and assessments are associated with which learning objectives. This helps instructors to align what they’re teaching and assessing on to what they think the student should be learning. More importantly, none of these innovations from any of the platforms are going to magically change poor large lecture classes into great educational experiences. The key to solving that problem is not the technology by itself but the learning design that it enables. The classroom flipping craze is a craze precisely because it is a learning design that can improve the pedagogical impact of these large survey classes. But anyone who has actually tried to flip their class will tell you that it’s not easy to do well. Faculty need pedagogical models other than the ones that they learned from their own professors, including the practical tips and support necessary to make those models work in the real world. They need course designs based on learning science and collected experience of innovators, and supported by technology. The MindTap platform doesn’t provide that. No technology platform does. And as far as I can tell, Cengage is not yet designing courseware for MindTap that even attempts to do this. But in order to accomplish the bigger goal, we first need to strike a new balance regarding course design customization. It’s not a question of “more” versus “less.” There will always be times when it is wise to allow a skilled instructor to tune a course. But there needs to be more of a sophisticated collaboration between the individual instructor, a curriculum design team (whether that team works for a textbook publisher or a university), and the other instructors teaching the course at the same institution in order to arrive at better pedagogical approaches that can be adopted and adapted to best effect by individual teachers. In order to accomplish that, you need to start with a combination of platform and content that makes meaningless course assembly unnecessary and meaningful course customization both easy and visible. This is what we mean at e-Literate when we write about “courseware.” And at the moment, MindTap is the best example I know of what a next-generation courseware platform will look like. The post Cengage MindTap and the Evolution of Courseware appeared first on e-Literate.

So MindTap just won a CODiE award for “Best Post-secondary Personalized Learning Solution.” In and of itself, this isn’t a big deal. No offense intended to current or prior winners, but the CODiEs often feel like awards for “Best Instant Coffee” or “Best New Technology Product by an Important Sponsor of Our Awards Program.” They’re not exactly signals of breakthrough educational product design. But I’m glad that the award was given in this case because I think MindTap does represent an important innovation that addresses some of the trends that we’ve been blogging about here at e-Literate (which was one of the reasons that I was enticed to work on MindTap at Cengage for a while).

MindTap is not a “personalized learning solution.” While it does allow students to do things like integrate their Evernote accounts and choose whether they want to read or listen to texts, the level of personalization for the learners is not terribly different from other products on the market. (And it certainly is nowhere near as radical as the vision for a Personalized Learning Environment which came from the UK’s JISC and elsewhere, and from which terms like “personalized learning solution” and “personalized learning experience” have been bastardized). Nor are there adaptive analytics or other sorts of machine-driven personalization in the product at this time. Rather, the key differentiator in the current incarnation of MindTap is the way in which it creates a more refined and complete learning experience out of the box while still enabling faculty to customize those experiences to the needs of their students in pretty significant and, in some cases, new ways. This is exactly where the textbook, LMS, and MOOC markets are all headed, and MindTap got there first.

The Problem to be Solved

In order to understand the value of a product like MindTap, it’s important to understand where textbook publishers do and do not compete. You’re not going to see a lot of MindTap-style products for courses like “Advanced Topics in International Trade Policy,” “Research in Genetics,” “Greek Film,” or “Intermediate Killer Shark Genre.” These smaller courses are relatively uninteresting to textbook publishers because they don’t have the scale necessary to generate significant revenues, and they are also better suited to hand-crafted course designs that are tailored to the strengths of the particular professor doing the teaching and can be highly tailored to the needs and interests of the students in the class. Rather, the courses in question are more like “Introduction to Psychology,” “General Biology I,” “Microeconomics,” or “Survey of Western Civilization.” (English Composition is an anomaly in this categorization because of the way it is taught.) These courses are generally taught in large lecture halls with little or no writing—and when there is writing, it is often graded quickly on a narrow range of criteria by overworked graduate students—and relatively generic syllabi (particularly in non-elite institutions).

A lot of the heated debate over whether college is “broken” revolves around these sorts of classes without ever explicitly defining the scope of the problem. Those who say school is broken and need to be disrupted tend to argue as if all college courses are giant, boring lecture courses. Those who argue against the “school is broken” meme tend to characterize these large lecture-centric courses as exceptions. Neither characterization is entirely accurate. On one hand, there are huge swaths of courses in just about any college catalog that are not large lecture courses. On the other hand, because the large lecture courses are concentrated in core curriculum and core major classes, most students have to take a handful of these courses in order to graduate.

Regardless of how pervasive or rare you think these courses are, everybody seems to agree that they are not terribly effective. But what should be done about the problem? Shrinking the class size is simply not going to happen, given both budget realities and the moral imperative to increase access to education. And yet, the current situation is bad not only for the students but also for the instructors. Keep in mind that the people teaching these survey courses are disproportionately either junior faculty who are doing all kinds of other duties to earn tenure or adjuncts who are working unreasonable course loads just to make ends meet. They generally don’t have a lot of time to either carefully craft a course or give students a lot of (or any) individual attention. They often have little choice but to take what the publisher is giving them as their course outline and run with it. In and of itself, the direct adoption of a publisher’s curriculum isn’t necessarily bad for many of these courses. The whole idea of a core course is that it helps all students getting a particular degree or a particular major to master certain competencies that they should have. There is a strong argument for consistency of curriculum across core courses. But the current situation neither guarantees consistency of curriculum nor saves the instructor time for either thoughtful customization of the curriculum or any other purpose. There is still a lot of hand assembly required to pull together reading assignments, assessments, slides and lecture notes, and so on. It is generally not a creative process because there is little time for creativity, but it is nevertheless a labor-intensive process and one that is prone to introduce variation in hitting those core competencies without any checks or even necessarily a lot of reflection on it.

A Better Compromise

If instructors are going to adopt a third-party course curriculum anyway, then we should at least use technology to remove the hand assembly. Why not provide the readings, multimedia, assignments and assessments, neatly integrated with a basic syllabus, into one ready-to-use digital package for the students? At its most basic, this is what “courseware” is and what MindTap does. It provides students and instructors with a ready-to-go complete course structure with all the materials and assessments placed in a logical and easily navigable order. Joel Spolsky once defined poor user interface design as forcing users to make choices that they don’t care about. That is also an apt description for 80% of the pre-semester course preparation process that instructors go through with these big survey courses. Pre-assembling the elements of the vanilla version of the course frees up the instructors’ time to focus on the customizations that they actually do care about. To begin with, the course structure is already assembled and visible, which makes it easier for the instructor to think about its total shape. Removing unwanted content or changing content order is trivially easy, making the roughing in of the course structure very quick.

But things get really interesting when you start looking at adding to the learning path structure in MindTap rather than just moving or deleting things. In ed tech discussions, we tend to talk about APIs as if the main differentiation is having them versus not having them. Can you or can you not integrate Google Docs into a course? But in reality, the specifics of the integration can make an enormous difference in how practically useful the added functionality is to teachers and students. Do you want to make a folder of your documents (like your syllabus) available to the students at all times in the course with one or two clicks, or do you want to insert your own supplemental document right into the course reading, zero clicks away for the student and on their default navigation path? These two types of integration serve fundamentally different purposes in the course. In MindTap, you can do both and more. And importantly, making these different customizations is intuitive and almost trivially easy. Radical customization of the course structure is very much possible. But both because there is far less instructor time wasted with hand assembly of course elements and because customizations are visible and visualizable in the learning path structure, the percentage of time spent on meaningful instructional activities, whether that’s course customization or student interaction, is likely to be higher. For this reason, the MindApp model and the learning path structure are MindTap’s crown jewels.

Table Stakes

Of course, MindTap doesn’t have a monopoly on useful courseware platform design. For example, WileyPLUS enables instructors to see which course materials and assessments are associated with which learning objectives. This helps instructors to align what they’re teaching and assessing on to what they think the student should be learning. More importantly, none of these innovations from any of the platforms are going to magically change poor large lecture classes into great educational experiences. The key to solving that problem is not the technology by itself but the learning design that it enables. The classroom flipping craze is a craze precisely because it is a learning design that can improve the pedagogical impact of these large survey classes. But anyone who has actually tried to flip their class will tell you that it’s not easy to do well. Faculty need pedagogical models other than the ones that they learned from their own professors, including the practical tips and support necessary to make those models work in the real world. They need course designs based on learning science and collected experience of innovators, and supported by technology. The MindTap platform doesn’t provide that. No technology platform does. And as far as I can tell, Cengage is not yet designing courseware for MindTap that even attempts to do this. But in order to accomplish the bigger goal, we first need to strike a new balance regarding course design customization. It’s not a question of “more” versus “less.” There will always be times when it is wise to allow a skilled instructor to tune a course. But there needs to be more of a sophisticated collaboration between the individual instructor, a curriculum design team (whether that team works for a textbook publisher or a university), and the other instructors teaching the course at the same institution in order to arrive at better pedagogical approaches that can be adopted and adapted to best effect by individual teachers. In order to accomplish that, you need to start with a combination of platform and content that makes meaningless course assembly unnecessary and meaningful course customization both easy and visible. This is what we mean at e-Literate when we write about “courseware.” And at the moment, MindTap is the best example I know of what a next-generation courseware platform will look like.

The post Cengage MindTap and the Evolution of Courseware appeared first on e-Literate.

2013年5月12日 シリーズ：Eve and Adam week1 「女性が信じてしまっている二つのウソ」 メッセンジャー： 大窪秀幸牧師 / Pastor Hide メッセージノート：　http://www.lighthousechurch.jp/message.html 日曜礼拝時間： １１：００〜１２：１５ １４：３０〜１５：３０ (J-on ※) ※ユースとヤングアダルト中心の礼拝。もちろん誰でも参加できます。 ライトハウスキリスト教会　大阪府堺市堺区砂道町3-6-19 http://www.lighthousechurch.jp

2013年5月12日 シリーズ：プラグイン week1 「キリストにつながる二つの鍵」 メッセンジャー： 大窪秀幸牧師 / Pastor Hide メッセージノート：　http://www.lighthousechurch.jp/message.html 日曜礼拝時間： １１：００〜１２：１５ １４：３０〜１５：３０ (J-on ※) ※ユースとヤングアダルト中心の礼拝。もちろん誰でも参加できます。 ライトハウスキリスト教会　大阪府堺市堺区砂道町3-6-19 http://www.lighthousechurch.jp

2013年4月28日 シリーズ： 「神様の祝福のもとに生きる」 メッセンジャー： ヘザー・マカロック宣教師 / Heather McCullough メッセージノート：　http://www.lighthousechurch.jp/message.html 日曜礼拝時間： １１：００〜１２：１５ １４：３０〜１５：３０ (J-on ※) ※ユースとヤングアダルト中心の礼拝。もちろん誰でも参加できます。 ライトハウスキリスト教会　大阪府堺市堺区砂道町3-6-19 http://www.lighthousechurch.jp

Earlier this week, I went to Anchorage for an hour. Yes, an hour.

Here's the scene at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport around 1 a.m., shortly after my arrival and not long before my departure:

The Hudson News store (on the right, past the Cinnabon) has a good selection of Alaska-themed postcards.

A map of the full 31-hour, 9600-mile trip from New York's La Guardia Airport to Anchorage and back (via Washington, D.C., Phoenix, and Charlotte) looks like this:

(Map generated using the Great Circle Mapper)

IT Services, with the 4 academic divisions, have developed a tool where graduate students and post-doctoral researcher can search for short courses and then request a place. This talk will give a walk-through of the tool, explain how data is gathered and stored, the various data feeds that are created by the tool, and the ways in which students can request places on courses. It is suitable for training providers and people of a technical bent. This takes place in IT Services (Banbury Rd) on Monday 13th May between 12.30 and 1.20 Booking is required: https://courses.it.ox.ac.uk/detail/TM13G

IT Services, with the 4 academic divisions, have developed a tool where graduate students and post-doctoral researcher can search for short courses and then request a place.

This talk will give a walk-through of the tool, explain how data is gathered and stored, the various data feeds that are created by the tool, and the ways in which students can request places on courses.

It is suitable for training providers and people of a technical bent.

This takes place in IT Services (Banbury Rd) on Monday 13th May between 12.30 and 1.20

Booking is required: https://courses.it.ox.ac.uk/detail/TM13G

Note: I am not speaking for Blackboard in this post and I am not speaking for the University of Michigan in this post. The opinions in this are my own. Just over a year ago, in addition to my full-time job as a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Michigan School of Information, I became a part-time employee of Blackboard, Inc. as with a title of Sakai Chief Strategist (My Blog Post / Press Release) I figure it is probably a good time to give a bit of a status update as to how things went this past year and what I did. A little more context on my decision / strategy You can go back and read all my motivation, rationalization, and plans from my blog posts from late March and early April of last year. While all I said was completely true – there was one small detail in my motivation for going to Blackboard that I somewhat understated a year ago. You can see a running theme of Sakai CLE resources in those posts but not up-front and explicit. Now a year later I can be much more explicit. Early in 2012, things were looking really bleak for the Sakai CLE. The progress toward the 2.9 release had slowed and eventually stopped. I was really worried that if Sakai 2.9 (most importantly Rutgers LessonBuilder) did not ship that Sakai 2.8 would not be able to hold its market share because of Sakai 2.8’s lack of structured and sequenced content. But I felt that 2.9 with its new portal and LessonBuilder would be a solid and competent LMS that would have a long life in the US and around the world. I did not want to quit so close to the finish line. If you recall, Sakai 2.9 was in *beta* when the TCC cancelled all further release activity. In January – March 2012, I felt that we were seeing the end of Sakai before our eyes. In this blog post from March 31 last year – I get a little testy and call out the Sakai community for its lack of investment in the commons. You can see my frustration, anger, and fear with respect to Sakai’s long-term survival in that post. Michael Chasen was willing to give me money and resources to invest in Sakai so we could finish and ship Sakai 2.9. He would put little or no constraints on how I spent the money – it was mine to spend as I saw fit. It was not enough money to take over Sakai development and release management but I gave him a figure that I felt would get things moving again when added to the rest of the Sakai community resources. You can look at the Sakai 2.9.0 release cycle document to see that 2.9.0 was finished November 12, 2012. The code freeze and first release tag (A01) had been created 13 months earlier on October 17, 2011. I want to make it really clear that many people deserve credit for the 2.9.0 release. My contribution and Blackboard’s contribution to 2.9.0 was non-trivial but many others contributed much more than Blackboard or me. It was a cross-community effort and I was only a part of that effort – which is as it should be. What Got Done? How Did You Spend Your Time? How Did You Spend the Money Here is a list in no particular order. I bought food, drink, stickers, and shirts for community leadership. Sorry – but this is important. For those of you who have been in Sakai from the beginning, you may remember situations where I used the University of Michigan Credit card (backed by grant funds) to pick up the tab for 40-50 people at a time. If you are going to volunteer your spare time to doing hundreds of hours Quality Assurance or software development – then *someone* should at least buy you a meal or two to say “thanks”. I don’t hesitate to use my Blackboard American Express Card to pick up the tab when I am sitting at a table with a bunch of amazing community volunteers. I took the entire TCC and a few guests to Ruth Chris at the June 2012 meeting. I turned in an expense of $3700 for the TCC dinner. It was approved with no questions asked. It was a bargain given the amount of work that the people eating those steaks have contributed over the years. I contracted with developers in the Sakai community from June 2012 – February 2013 to work on resolving any and every outstanding Sakai 2.9 issue they could find. When I paid these contractors I did not ask that they make any public statements about the source of their funds. This was not about getting credit for Blackboard per se, it was simply to get the product out the door with whatever it took. I paid for travel for several people in the Sakai community who could not otherwise attend meetings where I felt their presence was very valuable and their organizations could not afford their attendance. Again, the funds were given without any requirement of public announcement that the funds came from Blackboard. These funds were a gift/grant because I wanted the particular person to be at the meeting – it was not to make it about Blackboard. I travelled to the Sakai meetings in Atlanta, Paris, and Puebla Mexico as well as had Blackboard pay my way to the Sakai Foundation board meetings while I was still on the board. I also went to a Moodle Moot in Los Angeles. I gave talks at each of these meetings – mostly focused on bringing some excitement back to the CLE and making sure that everyone knew how awesome Sakai 2.9 was. Blackboard paid my part-time salary and made it possible for me to spend nearly all my own spare time working on Sakai. Beyond bug fixes and release support for Sakai 2.9, the my primary large developments were to completely replace the Sakai Web Content tool with a JSR-168 portlet that eliminated the double iframe problem and allowed us to deal with sites that are starting to set the X-Frame header. The second development was a major investment in cleaning up the LTI code in Sakai and release a new version of LTI with Sakai 2.9.2 that fixed over 45 problems that were identified in the LTI code from the 2.9.0 release. Both the new Web Content tool and LTI code should be in the upcoming 2.9.2 release. This was all supported by Blackboard. University of Michigan (Beth, Zhen, and John) can also take a bunch of the credit for the new LTI code as well. Matt Jones and Sam Ottenhoff of LongSight also helped with the Web Content tool. I even spent Blackboard funds to send myself to a purely academic conference. I figure I am an academic researcher – I should go to an academic (i.e. not industry) conference once in a while. It was my first non-industry conference in years. I installed a Sakai 2.9 QA server on my Blackboard-provided server hardware. I wanted this so I could do more complete tests of Sakai’s increasing support for LTI-related web services. So What Did You Do For Blackboard Last Year? I did do a few things for Blackboard that weren’t just working on Sakai. I advocated internally for quick implementation of LTI 1.1 in ANGEL – which was completed in mid-summer and announced at BbWorld 2012 in July. I joyfully filled out my IMS Ring of Compliance with the ANGEL logo and got the tattoo in New Orleans with Linda Feng doing the filming. I did a review of the xpLor integration API and made suggestions that led to a new version of the API that makes it more reasonable to integrate xpLor into an LMS at “arms length” – it made xpLor more like just anther external tool in terms of its access to information within the LMS. I hope this new API will be the basis for a general-purpose Learning Object Repository Integration (LORI) API in an upcoming version of IMS LTI 2.x and that such an API will allow many tools (i.e. not just xpLor) to enjoy deep integration with LMS systems. I built the API code to support the revised LORI API so that Blackboard’s xpLor (as well as other LOR products) can smoothly integrate into Sakai’s Lessons capability as of Sakai 2.9.2. I also built PHP sample code/unit tests for that API. I have been interacting with the Blackboard Engage (formerly Edline) group that sells a very successful K12 CMS system. I am working with them as they explore LTI integrations. (I am not announcing any delivery of any product here) I have been attending IMS quarterly meetings and Learning Impact to continue to move IMS LTI 2.0 and other IMS activities forward. I have been working with Blackboard Collaborate (formerly Wimba/Elluminate) as they explore the LTI integration. They are in pretty good shape on their own but I help a little bit here and there when they ask. I worked with my new colleagues from Moodlerooms. But really I mostly just learned from them. We went through the design of the Moodle 2.3 LTI code and its design approaches – and I stole many of those ideas for LTI in Sakai. They showed me some of their secrets of how they get Moodle to scale so well. Their approaches really informed what I think we should do in Sakai if we want to become a SaaS application. Seeing the Moodlerooms SaaS implementation makes me just a little jealous. There were several things I did not do in the past year. First, I am not allowed to work on closed-source products directly as part of the employment contract between University of Michigan, Blackboard, and me. So I have not written any code for Learn, xpLor, or any of Blackboard’s non-open source products. This has not been a problem – I have been plenty busy with Sakai and IMS things and Blackboard has plenty of really talented folks working on those products. The second thing I have not done is any kind of sales support. Three times in the past year a sales person in a situation where Sakai was involved in a possible Learn sale has contacted me asking for help. In each case I have politely declined. My management (in the Blackboard engineering organization) has put absolutely no pressure on me at all to do any sales support at all. I doubt they even knew I was contacted. I have answered a few technical questions about different versions of Sakai or how to convert data but nothing on the strategies or tactics of a particular sale. So I feel very comfortable and feel no conflict of interest. If Blackboard products fare well in the marketplace I am happy because my budget for money to spend on Sakai goes up. But I have had no problem at all remaining 100% loyal to Sakai and the Sakai community over the past year as a Blackboard employee – in particular because my management expects me to be committed to Sakai and the Sakai community. So What Went Wrong? Nothing is perfect, right? There must be some disappointment. If I look back over the year, the only thing that leaves me a little disappointed is that I really wanted to get to the point that I could use Blackboard’s performance testing lab and quality assurance processes and apply them to Sakai as a way to increase overall resources available to the community. This would be an amazing contribution if I can pull it off. I made some progress on this last summer when the performance test lab in Blackboard (which is awesome) did some performance testing on Sakai and identified some areas that could be improved. I really would love to have gotten that work finished and presented to the Sakai community – but I just got too distracted by other things to stay on top of that task and bring it home. And once Sakai 2.9.0 shipped it seemed to me to be less pressing. Perhaps in time I will come back to this task and finish it. But even now, it is kind of on my back burner. Not much else went wrong. So What Is Next? In general, much of the roadmap of the Sakai CLE is discussed and set at the annual meeting – this year in San Diego. So some of these priorities might get adjusted after that meeting. But for now, these are the two tasks I will set out to accomplish this summer as my Blackboard contribution to Sakai: I want Sakai to be the first LMS to ship LTI 2.0 support. While LTI 1.1 is great and nearly universal, it is starting to fray at the edges as each LMS pours more and more extensions into it. These extensions take widely different approaches, use different formats and web service interaction patterns. There is no interoperability and no conformance tests for these extensions. LTI 2.0 gives a way to solve all these problems – but we have to get started before there is any payoff. So I plan to write the Sakai LTI 2.0 support, a full set of PHP sample code to compliment the Rails sample code developed by John Tibbets and contributed to IMS, and work to get LTI 2.0 into Moodle through my MoodleRooms colleagues. I will also start building sample LTI 2.0 tools and write LTI 2.0 documentation to help evangelize LTI 2.0 to other LMS systems. This is a long task – but the best time to get started is now. Once I have LTI 2.0 underway I want to circle back and look at IMS Common Cartridge import and export in Sakai. Chuck Hedrick has done a great job with Lessons in terms of CC import and export – but I want to expand it to interact with everything in Sakai – not just content in Lessons. I want to look at interoperability of the cartridges in a way that supports open educational resource use cases. I will be teaching a Python MOOC on Blackboard’s CourseSites platform. I want to use this as a way to learn how to teach using Bb Learn and explore some of the cool features of Learn as well as spread my Python material to a few thousand more students through yet another channel. I also expect to serve as an early heavy user of LTI in CourseSites to make sure that it is easy for others who come in after me. I want to also play with the nice Common Cartridge and Open Educational Resource support in Learn as well – again to serve as an pattern for others to follow building MOOC / OER courses. Here is the link to enroll in my course (scroll down to Python for Informatics). I would like to increase Blackboard’s direct support of the Apereo Foundation. We spent three+ years merging Sakai and JASig – for me it is time to invest in Apereo so it can move into the kinds of wonderful new areas we had imagined as we designed the merger. Summary/Reflection It has been a heck of a year. Releasing Sakai 2.9.0 and (soon) Sakai 2.9.2 will be really important milestones for me. My own measurement of the value of my Blackboard activities is simply that the Sakai community is thriving and healthy and the product continues to move forward and improve. Back a year ago I told people that this would all be “no big deal” and everything would be fine. I hope that people now see a year later that this is indeed the case. Blackboard has gently supported the Sakai community in appropriate ways and without fanfare. As was stated March of last year, Blackboard intends to have a healthy engagement in open source activities like Moodle and Sakai and do so in a way that advances the causes of those communities in order to have a healthy open source ecosystem in higher education. When I look at both my involvement in Sakai and the Moodlerooms team’s involvement in Moodle – I am pretty pleased and proud of what has been done so far. As always, comments welcome.