agregador de noticias
Me: Have you been told not to do bad things online?
Me: How about good things?
These problems are nothing we haven't seen before, but this article makes a good case for each, plus some good discussion on proposed remedies (quoted):
- Academia has a huge money problem
- Too many studies are poorly designed. Blame bad incentives.
- Replicating results is crucial. But scientists rarely do it.
- Peer review is broken
- Too much science is locked behind paywalls
- Science is poorly communicated to the public
- Life as a young academic is incredibly stressful
Science, they say, is "ripe for disruption". But what would that even look like?[Link] [Comment]
La Universidad está inmersa en un proceso que aniquila intelectuales y los convierte en un nuevo tipo de ser académico cuyo fin último es hacer papers No se fomenta un profesorado que intente enseñar más allá de los cánones establecidos o colabore con asociaciones u organizaciones sociales
See it on Scoop.it, via Educación flexible y abierta
The short answer to this question is: no, online learning is neither inherently worse – nor better – than face-to-face teaching; it all depends on the circumstances.The research evidence
There have been thousands of studies comparing face-to-face teaching to teaching with a wide range of different technologies, such as televised lectures, computer-based learning, and online learning, or comparing face-to-face teaching with distance education.
With regard to online learning there have been several meta-studies. A meta-study combines the results of many ‘well-conducted scientific’ studies, usually studies that use the matched comparisons or quasi-experimental method (Means et al., 2011; Barnard et al., 2014). Nearly all such ‘well-conducted’ meta-studies find no or little significant difference in the modes of delivery, in terms of the effect on student learning or performance. For instance, Means et al. (2011), in a major meta-analysis of research on blended and online learning for the U.S. Department of Education, reported:
In recent experimental and quasi-experimental studies contrasting blends of online and face-to-face instruction with conventional face-to-face classes, blended instruction has been more effective, providing a rationale for the effort required to design and implement blended approaches. When used by itself, online learning appears to be as effective as conventional classroom instruction, but not more so.
However, the ‘no significant difference’ finding is often misinterpreted. If there is no difference, then why do online learning? I’m comfortable teaching face-to-face, so why should I change?
This is a misinterpretation of the findings, because there may indeed within any particular study be large differences between conditions (face-to-face vs online), but they cancel each other out over a wide range of studies, or because with matched comparisons you are looking at only very specific, strictly comparable conditions, that never exist in a real teaching context.
For instance the ‘base’ variable chosen is nearly always the traditional classroom. In order to make a ‘scientific’ comparison, the same learning objectives and same treatment (teaching) is applied to the comparative condition (online learning). This means using exactly the same kind of students, for instance, in both conditions. But what if (as is the case) online learning better suits non-traditional students, or will achieve better learning outcomes if the teaching is designed differently to suit the context of online learning?Asking the right questions
Indeed, it is the variables or conditions for success that we should be examining, not just the technological delivery. In other words, we should be asking a question first posed by Wilbur Schramm as long ago as 1977:
What kinds of learning can different media best facilitate, and under what conditions?
In terms of making decisions then about mode of delivery, we should be asking, not which is the best method overall, but:
What are the most appropriate conditions for using face-to-face, blended or fully online learning respectively?
So what are the conditions that best suit online learning?
There are a number of possible answers:
- fully online learning best suits more mature, adult, lifelong learners who already have good independent learning skills and for work and family reasons don’t want to come on campus
- blended learning or a mix of classroom and fully online courses best suits full time undergraduate students who are also working part-time to keep their debt down, and need the flexibility to do part of their studies online
- ‘dependent’ learners who lack self-discipline or who don’t know how to manage their own learning probably will do better with face-to-face teaching; however independent learning is a skill that can be taught, so blended learning is a safe way to gradually introduce such students to more independent study methods
- learning outcomes:
- embedding technology within the teaching may better enable the development of certain ’21st century skills’, such as independent learning, confidence in using information technologies within a specific subject domain, and knowledge management
- online learning may provide more time on task to enable more practice of skills, such as problem-solving in math
- redesign of very large lecture classes, so that lectures are recorded and students come to class for discussion and questions, making the classes more interactive and hence improving learning outcomes
Even this is really putting the question round the wrong way. A better question is:
What are the challenges I am facing as an instructor (or my learners are facing as students) that could be better addressed through online learning? And what form of online learning will work best for my students?Quality
However, the most important condition influencing the effectiveness of both face-to-face and online teaching is how well it is done. A badly designed and delivered face-to-face class will have worse learning outcomes than a well designed online course – and vice versa. Ensuring quality in online learning will be the topic of the last few blogs in this series.Implications
- Don’t worry about the effectiveness of online learning. Under the right conditions, it works well.
- Start with the challenges you face. Keep an open mind when thinking about whether online learning might be a better solution than continuing in the same old way.
- If you think it might be a solution for some of your problems, start thinking about the necessary conditions for success. The next few blog posts should help you with this.
Here is some suggested further reading on the effectiveness of online learning:
- more on the research into online learning: Chapter 9.2: Comparing Delivery Methods, in Teaching in a Digital Age
- more on what kind of students benefit most from online learning: Chapter 9.3: Which mode? Student needs, in Teaching in a Digital Age
- more on the relationship between 21st century skills and online learning: Chapter 1.2: The skills needed in a digital age, and Chapter 9.4: Choosing between face-to-face and online teaching on campus, in Teaching in a Digital Age.
‘Aren’t MOOCs online learning?’ (to be posted later in the week July 18-22, 2016)
Readers familiar with European Research projects will know how they work. The projects negotiate with the European Commission a DOW – Description of Work – which details the work to be undertaken in each year of the project. It is divided into discrete work packages. Every year the work package provides a (usually over lengthy) report on research and development undertaken which is then presented to a team of expert reviewers who can ‘pass’, recommend changes or ‘fail’ the report. Although obviously large scale multi national research projects need structures and plans. But all too often the work package structure separates research and development activities which should not be separated and the DOW become a restrictive ‘bible’, rather than a guide for action. And despite the large amount of work which goes into preparing the work package reports, they are seldom widely read (if indeed read at all), except by the reviewers.
In the EmployID project which is working with identity transformation in European Public Employment Services (PES), we are doing things differently. The work is structured though cross work package teams, who follow an adapted SCRUM structure. The teams are reviewed at face to face meetings and recomposed if necessary. And this year, instead of producing a series of Work package reports, the project partners have jointly contributed to a book – Empowering Change in Public Employment Services: The EmployID Approach which has just been published and can be downloaded for free.
The introduction to the 244 page PDF book explains the background to the work:
European Public Employment Services (PES) and their employees are facing fundamental challenges to the delivery of efficient and effective services and the need to change their strategies to combat high unemployment, demographic change in increasingly uncertain and dynamic labour markets. This does not only require developing new professional skills related to new tasks, but poses for more profound developmental challenges for staff members.
Three of these changes relate to understanding the changing world of work; a ‘turn’ towards coaching; and the increased importance of relations with employers. The staff need to learn new ways of working, with a major challenge being to enhance the power of collaborative (peer) learning in order to support staff in accomplishing their goals.
All these changes are linked to transforming professional identity, which requires learning on a deeper level that is often neglected by continuing professional development strategies. EmployID makes its contribution here; that PES practitioners’ learning related to professional identity transformation needs to be facilitated through social learning approaches and the nurturing of social learning networks, which include the following:
Reflection as a way of turning one’s own and others’ experiences into general insights on multiple levels, both from an individual and a collective perspective
Peer coaching as a way of helping learners in changing their behavior through a structured process
Social learning programmes as a way of engaging learners with new topics, other perspectives, and conversations around it.
This is a summary of a study from Facebook, and it's important to keep in mind that Facebook is lobbying for a limited Facebook-only version of the internet in poorer countries. This is why it makes sense to say, for example, that "75% of the unconnected had never heard of the word 'internet.'" It's like they won't know what they're missing if they get only Facebook. That said, it is unacceptable that 4 billion don't have access to internet. And it's not because the internet isn't relevant ('reason 3') for these people, nor is it because they are not ready ('reason 4') for the internet. It has everything to do with a global model of resource distribution where the necessities of life and the means of producing them - not only internet, but food, energy, housing, and the rest - are provided only to those who can pay for them. Facebook's wealth, and the system that produced it, is the reason 4 billion people are offline.[Link] [Comment]
Kevin Kelly has a long history of being wrong about the future and his streak will continue with this article. The world he depicts here is not some sort Star Trek Federation economy or socialist ideal - it's an end-state for a capitalist dream, where all ownership has been consolidated in corporations and individual people have nothing of their own. It's a world where, if you don't pay, you don't have anything, which means that (as today) social control and individual labour will be secured by corporations through the threat of cutting access to food, housing, entertainment, and more. Security, continuity, affinity - these are important to people, and physical objects are tangible instances of them.[Link] [Comment]
Where: KICD, Nairobi, Kenya
When: September 12-16, 2016
Who: Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) is the conference host and convening partner. The Institute’s core function is to conduct research and develop curricular for all levels of education below the university. Website: http://www.kicd.ac.ke
- Prof. Erwin Sniedzins, Gamification Architect
- Gene Wade, CEO of One University Network
- Prof. John Traxler, Research Prof. Digital Learning
- Mr. Rajeev Gupta, CEO & Founder mElimu
- Prof. Peter E. Kinyanjui, Chairman, KICD Council.
- Mr. John Kimotho, Snr.Deputy Director / Deputy CEO, KICD
- Mrs. Esther Gacicio, Assistant Director, KICD e-Learning section
- Dr. Julius O. Jwan, Director & Chief Executive Officer KICD
- Dr. Penina Lam, Consultant World Bank, CGAP Gateway Academy
To register, go to http://elice.co/product/elice-2016-registration/
To make a presentation at the conference, go to: http://elice.co/speakers-application/. Applications must be received by 15 August, 2016