Choosing the School for You
16 Tough Questions to Ask Before Signing Up
By Jamie Littlefield
Before you enroll in online classes, take a few minutes to interview the school of your choice. Asking your questions upfront can ensure that the school is a perfect match for you. Once you’ve asked the following questions, as well as a few of your own, you’ll have a pretty good idea about whether or not you want to enroll.
1. Is this school accredited? By whom? Make sure that your school is accredited by the correct regional association. If it is not properly accredited, your degree may be rejected by the majority of employers.
2. When will it be reviewed for accreditation? If your school is not accredited, it may be in the process of scheduling a review. Check to see if accreditation is in its future.
3. How much is tuition? Are there any additional fees or hidden costs? Your tuition should be comparable to that of regular universities, perhaps slightly less. Make sure that you won’t be overcharged or stuck with mandatory fees.
4. What education and experience do your teachers have? If teachers will be grading your work or leading you in online discussions, it is important that they have the knowledge necessary to do the job. The majority of junior college teachers have at least a M.A degree in the subject they teach, and the majority of university professors have a Ph. D. in their area of expertise. Distance education teachers should have comparable experience.
5. How many students does each teacher work with? Teachers who are assigned too many students have less time to work with people who need help. Making sure your teachers are not overburdened can help you get the education you deserve.
6. What hardware is required? Most online classes require that students have access to a computer that is has the ability to run up-to-date multimedia and word processing programs. If your computer is too old, it may not work with your online program.
7. Will I need to purchase any additional software? A lot of online programs provide all the materials you need directly from their site. A few request that their students buy supplemental software on their own.
8. What degrees are offered? Not every program offers every degree. Before you enroll, make sure that your school offers the degree that you are looking for.
9. How long does it take to complete the program? Some online schools offer students the chance to complete a degree in less time. Some students are even able to finish an entire year early.
10. Can I speed ahead or take more time and work at my own pace? While some schools let students complete tasks at their own pace, others require that students participate in virtual class sessions and have specific deadlines for assignments.
11. What curriculum is used? Will I need to purchase textbooks? If you will be required to purchase textbooks, determine what their average cost will be. Books can be expensive, even hundreds of dollars per course. If you are an auditory or kinetic learner (learn best by hearing and doing, rather than by reading alone), finding a school that offers a multimedia element in their curriculum may help you master the material.
12. What if I need extra help? Some schools provide virtual “office hours” that allow students to communicate with teachers when they have additional questions or are struggling in their work. Others expect students to work independently and do not offer direct assistance.
13. How long has this school existed? The longer the school has existed, the better. A school isn’t automatically credible because it’s been around a long time, but having experience is always a plus.
14. How many students are currently enrolled? If you enroll in a new school that has very few students, you can expect to encounter quite a bit of instability.
15. How many students have graduated? A higher graduation rate demonstrates higher levels of student contentment and success.
16. How will I communicate with the school? Is it all online or is there a number I can call for help? Having a number to call or an actual location you can go to can be very helpful when you need help or are looking for answers. Most legitimate schools will give you a number you can use to reach them.
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Friday, 6 March 2009
7 Success Strategies for Distance Learners
Distance learning has special challenges. You will probably never see or meet the teacher. You won't have classmates. You don't have a campus full of people studying the same thing.
But you can succeed! Plan on it! Follow the simple tips below, and you'll do better in your learning. They may seem pretty basic, but they'll help keep you focused and on track.
1. Set goals.
• Goal #1: "I will succeed in this course."
• At the beginning of a new course, look through the materials. Break the lessons/assignments into manageable chunks. You might not have time to do a full lesson in one night, so plan for how much you can do, then stick to it until you're done.
2. Establish a regular study/learning schedule.
• Keep a calendar or journal with your study goals and important dates clearly marked-and look at it every day (a calendar can't help you if it's closed!).
• Determine what time is best for you to study. Is it after dinner on Wednesdays when your partner is at bowling? Is it Saturday mornings when the kids are at soccer?
• Take breaks-walk around and stretch. Drink some water or have a light snack. If you're studying nutrition or health topics, you know how important this is!
• If possible, have a dedicated study place with all the supplies you might need (computer, paper, pens, calculator, etc.)
• Pace yourself. Don't over extend yourself. There's a reason it takes several years to graduate from traditional university. You're in this to learn, not just to get a certificate, so make sure you're learning, not just racing through the materials.
3. Talk about it!
• Tell people what you're doing. You're more likely to stick to a course if your co-worker knows you're doing it. If you are studying high-tech or internet development, the person might just know a programmer he can hook you up with for tutoring.
• Ask a friend to check up on you.
• Ask someone to proof your work before you submit it.
4. Join a study group-this doesn't have to be stuffy!
• Join a club. Aspiring financial planners could join a local investing club.
• If you're studying a language like Spanish or Japanese, ask the owners of a local restaurant if they know anyone who might like to do language exchange with you.
• Get a mentor. If you're taking a course related to health or medicine, ask a nurse or pharmacist if you can take them for coffee once a month.
• Search the Internet for bulletin boards or chat rooms related to your topic.
5. Know your learning style, and use it!
• Look for real-world situations and examples of what you're learning about. If you're studying about civil engineering, pay attention to bridges.
• You'll be much more interested if you're involved, not just reading about a topic.
• Put things into practice as early as possible.
• If you're studying accounting, practice by balancing your checkbook.
6. Celebrate successes!
• Reward yourself with whatever works for you, along the way. Remember, you chose to do this. Be proud of your accomplishments!
7. Ask Questions
• If you don't understand something, ASK. It's been said a zillion times: the only dumb question is the one you don't ask.
It's not about memorizing - it's about learning material that will help you in your hobbies, career, and life. Memorization isn't a bad thing, but make sure you're memorizing because you are really interested in the information, and figure out a way to use the memorized information several times within a few days of learning it. It'll stick if it has real-world meaning.
Original written by Randall Shirley, Contributing Writer to World Wide Learn. © 2005. All Rights Reserved.
But you can succeed! Plan on it! Follow the simple tips below, and you'll do better in your learning. They may seem pretty basic, but they'll help keep you focused and on track.
1. Set goals.
• Goal #1: "I will succeed in this course."
• At the beginning of a new course, look through the materials. Break the lessons/assignments into manageable chunks. You might not have time to do a full lesson in one night, so plan for how much you can do, then stick to it until you're done.
2. Establish a regular study/learning schedule.
• Keep a calendar or journal with your study goals and important dates clearly marked-and look at it every day (a calendar can't help you if it's closed!).
• Determine what time is best for you to study. Is it after dinner on Wednesdays when your partner is at bowling? Is it Saturday mornings when the kids are at soccer?
• Take breaks-walk around and stretch. Drink some water or have a light snack. If you're studying nutrition or health topics, you know how important this is!
• If possible, have a dedicated study place with all the supplies you might need (computer, paper, pens, calculator, etc.)
• Pace yourself. Don't over extend yourself. There's a reason it takes several years to graduate from traditional university. You're in this to learn, not just to get a certificate, so make sure you're learning, not just racing through the materials.
3. Talk about it!
• Tell people what you're doing. You're more likely to stick to a course if your co-worker knows you're doing it. If you are studying high-tech or internet development, the person might just know a programmer he can hook you up with for tutoring.
• Ask a friend to check up on you.
• Ask someone to proof your work before you submit it.
4. Join a study group-this doesn't have to be stuffy!
• Join a club. Aspiring financial planners could join a local investing club.
• If you're studying a language like Spanish or Japanese, ask the owners of a local restaurant if they know anyone who might like to do language exchange with you.
• Get a mentor. If you're taking a course related to health or medicine, ask a nurse or pharmacist if you can take them for coffee once a month.
• Search the Internet for bulletin boards or chat rooms related to your topic.
5. Know your learning style, and use it!
• Look for real-world situations and examples of what you're learning about. If you're studying about civil engineering, pay attention to bridges.
• You'll be much more interested if you're involved, not just reading about a topic.
• Put things into practice as early as possible.
• If you're studying accounting, practice by balancing your checkbook.
6. Celebrate successes!
• Reward yourself with whatever works for you, along the way. Remember, you chose to do this. Be proud of your accomplishments!
7. Ask Questions
• If you don't understand something, ASK. It's been said a zillion times: the only dumb question is the one you don't ask.
It's not about memorizing - it's about learning material that will help you in your hobbies, career, and life. Memorization isn't a bad thing, but make sure you're memorizing because you are really interested in the information, and figure out a way to use the memorized information several times within a few days of learning it. It'll stick if it has real-world meaning.
Original written by Randall Shirley, Contributing Writer to World Wide Learn. © 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire
What's the best way for you to learn? Do you absorb more information from a lecture than a book? Would you rather watch a demonstration or do it yourself? Educators agree that people learn in different ways, including auditory (hear it), kinesthetic (do it), and visual (see it).
Online learning is more about a individual learning practice, to understand your learning style more, you can learn more efficient! It is one of the link you can do the test:
http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html
Hope the test help you to discover something!
Online learning is more about a individual learning practice, to understand your learning style more, you can learn more efficient! It is one of the link you can do the test:
http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html
Hope the test help you to discover something!
The Future of Online Learning
The Future of Online Learning: Ten Years On (Part 1/2)
by Stephen Downes
Personalized Learning
We now have powerful and inexpensive computers we can sling over our shoulder or carry in our shirt pocket. (Yamamoto, 2006) These computers are connected wirelessly to the internet at bandwidths sufficient to allow instant multimedia communication anywhere on the planet. These computers will only improve in the years ahead, becoming faster, slimmer, and more affordable. And we are not at the point where we are seeing the possibility that education may be deeply personalized.
To date, much of our attention, even in the field of online learning, has been focused on a system of learning centered on the class or cohort: groups of students studying the same curriculum pace through the same set of learning activities. (Fenning, 2004)
We continue to organize classes in grades, sorted, especially in the earlier years, by age. Time continues to be the dominant metaphor for units of learning, and learning continues to be constrained by time.
As it was ten years ago, the model is that of a group of people starting at the same time, studying the same materials at the same pace, and ending at the same time. And as I noted ten years ago, this model of education was adopted because it was the most efficient. (Hejmadi, 2006)
While we want to provide personalized attention, especially to submitted work, testing and grading, learning is still heavily dependent on the teacher. But because the teacher in turn is responsible for assembling, and often presenting, the materials to be learned, customization and personalization have not been practical.
So we have adopted a model where small groups of people form a cohort, thus allowing the teacher to present the same material to more than one person at a time, while offering individualized interaction and assessment.
What we have begun to notice with online learning, however, is a decreasing emphasis on this formal style of learning, and an increasing emphasis on what has come to be called informal learning. ( Chivers, 2006)
In the case of informal learning, students are not constrained by the limits of the classroom model. They can set their own curriculum and proceed at their own pace. (Moore, 1986) Learning can thus be based on a student’s individual needs, rather than as predefined in a formal class, and based on a student’s schedule, rather than that set by the institution.
Groups Versus Networks
The continuing trend in formal learning to structure learning opportunities as classes and cohorts requires explanation.
Underlying the transition from formal, structured learning to more informal and more unstructured learning is not simply a technological change but also a social change. It is this change I have attempted in recent years to capture under the heading of ‘groups versus networks’. (Downes, Groups Vs Networks: The Class Struggle Continues, 2006)
Traditionally, people have been seen to learn either as individuals or in groups. This characterization of organization is not unique to education; it is very common to talk of (say) the needs of the individual versus the needs of the state. This characterization, however, glosses over the possibility that there may be more or less cohesive ways of organizing people, thus allowing for a middle point between the individual and the group: the network.
Though networks have always existed, modern communications technologies highlight their existence and given them a new robustness. Networks are distinct from groups in that they preserve individual autonomy and promote diversity of belief, purpose and methodology. In a network, however, people do not act as disassociated individuals, but rather, cooperate in a series of exchanges that can produce, not merely individual goods, but also social goods.
Traditional learning composed of classes and cohorts operates more as a group than as a network. (Davis, 1993)
Interaction is structured and led by an instructor. Classes are closed; there is a clear barrier between members and non-members.
Learning Management and Competences
The ‘educational delivery’ (ED) system I postulated in 1998 became what we now know as the learning management system (LMS). However, unlike what was projected then, the LMS was not based on personalized learning, but rather, preserved the course management structure that prevailed in schools and universities. (Jarche, 2006) Indeed, early incarnations of the LMS were seen as extensions to the classroom, as evidenced by the name ‘web course tools’ (Web CT).
That said, even in traditional educational institutions, the trend is shifting away from courses and toward topics. This is seen in the development of competence-based learning designs, such as in the TenCompetence project. (Kraan, 2006)
The idea of competences is that they are based on identifiable skills or capacities, and hence are not rooted in a body of content but rather in a student’s personal growth. (Karampiperis, Demetrios, & Demetrios, 2006) As such, students are able to select their own track or achievement path through a competence domain, as informed by their own interests, employer needs, or in the case of younger students, parental guidance. Each competence, meanwhile, corresponds to a selection of learning resources (and specifically, learning objects). (de-Marcos, Pages, Martinez, & Gutierrez, 2007*)
It is not clear that such a system will meet the needs of learners. Insofar as this is a form of autonomous learning, it is not clear that it supports collaboration or cooperation. Moreover, it is not clear that an outcomes driven system is what students require; many valuable skills and aptitudes - art appreciation, for example - are not identifiable as an outcome. This becomes evident when we consider how learning is to be measured.
In traditional learning, success is achieved not merely by passing the test but in some way being recognized as having achieved expertise. A test-only system is a coarse system of measurement for a complex achievement.
Personal Learning Environments
In the future, competences will be just one way (and an unusually employer-centered way) to select learning opportunities. What we will see, rather, is that the selection of learning opportunities will not be a stand-alone activity, but instead will be embedded in other activities. (e-Lead, 2008)
One can imagine how players learn in the course of a game, for example. They do not first learn how to play the game, and then play it. Rather, they begin playing the game, and as they attempt to achieve goals or perform tasks, the learning they need is provided in that context. (Wagner, 2008)
The ‘personal learning environment’ (PLE) is a collection of concepts intended to express this idea. ( Liber, 2006)
The PLE is not an application, but rather, a description of the process of learning in situ from a variety of courses and according to one’s personal, context-situated, needs. The process, simply, is that learners will be presented with learning resources according to their interests, aptitudes, educational levels, and other factors (including employer factor and social factors) while they are in the process of working at their job, engaging in a hobby, or playing a game.
The environment that they happen to be in, whether it be a productivity tool, hobbyist web page, or online game, constitutes (at that time) the personal learning environment. Resources from across the internet are accessed from that environment: resources that conform to the student’s needs and interests, that have been in some way pre-selected or favorably filtered, and that may have been created by production studios, teachers, other students, or the student him or herself. Content - interaction, media, data - flows back and forth between the learning environment and the external resources, held together by the single identity being employed by the learner in this context.
In time, the learning management systems deployed by educational institutions will evolve into educational delivery systems usable by personal learning environments. They will, in essence, be the ‘remote resource’ accessed from a given context.
Educational delivery systems will recognize the identity of the student making the request and will coordinate with other online applications (which may include commercial brokers, open resource repositories, or additional student records) to facilitate the student’s learning activity.
We might think that these educational delivery systems will be delivering learning objects. This is not entirely incorrect, although a learning object today has come to be seen as more like a unit of text in a textbook or a lesson in a programmed learning workbook. It will be more accurate in the future to say ‘learning resource’, since many such resources will be available that do not conform to the traditional picture of a learning object - and may be as simply as a single image, or as complex as a simulation or training module.
*(de-Marcos, L., Pages, C., Martinez, J., & Gutierrez, J. (2007). Competency-based Learning Object Sequencing using Particle Swarms. Retrieved September 03, 2008, from 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence).
End of Part 1
by Stephen Downes
Personalized Learning
We now have powerful and inexpensive computers we can sling over our shoulder or carry in our shirt pocket. (Yamamoto, 2006) These computers are connected wirelessly to the internet at bandwidths sufficient to allow instant multimedia communication anywhere on the planet. These computers will only improve in the years ahead, becoming faster, slimmer, and more affordable. And we are not at the point where we are seeing the possibility that education may be deeply personalized.
To date, much of our attention, even in the field of online learning, has been focused on a system of learning centered on the class or cohort: groups of students studying the same curriculum pace through the same set of learning activities. (Fenning, 2004)
We continue to organize classes in grades, sorted, especially in the earlier years, by age. Time continues to be the dominant metaphor for units of learning, and learning continues to be constrained by time.
As it was ten years ago, the model is that of a group of people starting at the same time, studying the same materials at the same pace, and ending at the same time. And as I noted ten years ago, this model of education was adopted because it was the most efficient. (Hejmadi, 2006)
While we want to provide personalized attention, especially to submitted work, testing and grading, learning is still heavily dependent on the teacher. But because the teacher in turn is responsible for assembling, and often presenting, the materials to be learned, customization and personalization have not been practical.
So we have adopted a model where small groups of people form a cohort, thus allowing the teacher to present the same material to more than one person at a time, while offering individualized interaction and assessment.
What we have begun to notice with online learning, however, is a decreasing emphasis on this formal style of learning, and an increasing emphasis on what has come to be called informal learning. ( Chivers, 2006)
In the case of informal learning, students are not constrained by the limits of the classroom model. They can set their own curriculum and proceed at their own pace. (Moore, 1986) Learning can thus be based on a student’s individual needs, rather than as predefined in a formal class, and based on a student’s schedule, rather than that set by the institution.
Groups Versus Networks
The continuing trend in formal learning to structure learning opportunities as classes and cohorts requires explanation.
Underlying the transition from formal, structured learning to more informal and more unstructured learning is not simply a technological change but also a social change. It is this change I have attempted in recent years to capture under the heading of ‘groups versus networks’. (Downes, Groups Vs Networks: The Class Struggle Continues, 2006)
Traditionally, people have been seen to learn either as individuals or in groups. This characterization of organization is not unique to education; it is very common to talk of (say) the needs of the individual versus the needs of the state. This characterization, however, glosses over the possibility that there may be more or less cohesive ways of organizing people, thus allowing for a middle point between the individual and the group: the network.
Though networks have always existed, modern communications technologies highlight their existence and given them a new robustness. Networks are distinct from groups in that they preserve individual autonomy and promote diversity of belief, purpose and methodology. In a network, however, people do not act as disassociated individuals, but rather, cooperate in a series of exchanges that can produce, not merely individual goods, but also social goods.
Traditional learning composed of classes and cohorts operates more as a group than as a network. (Davis, 1993)
- Students pursue the same objectives employing the same methodologies. This is especially evident in corporate learning, where they are expected to share the same vision and to be pursuing the same outcomes.
- Learning in such classes is frequently collaborative, as students work in small groups to produce a common project or outcome. (
In the case of informal learning, however, the structure is much looser.
- People pursue their own objectives in their own way, while at the same time initiating and sustaining an ongoing dialogue with others pursuing similar objectives.
- Learning and discussion is not structured, but rather, is determined by the needs and interests of the participants.
- There is no leader; each person participates as they deem appropriate.
- There are no boundaries; people drift into and out of the conversation as their knowledge and interests change.
Learning Management and Competences
The ‘educational delivery’ (ED) system I postulated in 1998 became what we now know as the learning management system (LMS). However, unlike what was projected then, the LMS was not based on personalized learning, but rather, preserved the course management structure that prevailed in schools and universities. (Jarche, 2006) Indeed, early incarnations of the LMS were seen as extensions to the classroom, as evidenced by the name ‘web course tools’ (Web CT).
That said, even in traditional educational institutions, the trend is shifting away from courses and toward topics. This is seen in the development of competence-based learning designs, such as in the TenCompetence project. (Kraan, 2006)
The idea of competences is that they are based on identifiable skills or capacities, and hence are not rooted in a body of content but rather in a student’s personal growth. (Karampiperis, Demetrios, & Demetrios, 2006) As such, students are able to select their own track or achievement path through a competence domain, as informed by their own interests, employer needs, or in the case of younger students, parental guidance. Each competence, meanwhile, corresponds to a selection of learning resources (and specifically, learning objects). (de-Marcos, Pages, Martinez, & Gutierrez, 2007*)
It is not clear that such a system will meet the needs of learners. Insofar as this is a form of autonomous learning, it is not clear that it supports collaboration or cooperation. Moreover, it is not clear that an outcomes driven system is what students require; many valuable skills and aptitudes - art appreciation, for example - are not identifiable as an outcome. This becomes evident when we consider how learning is to be measured.
In traditional learning, success is achieved not merely by passing the test but in some way being recognized as having achieved expertise. A test-only system is a coarse system of measurement for a complex achievement.
Personal Learning Environments
In the future, competences will be just one way (and an unusually employer-centered way) to select learning opportunities. What we will see, rather, is that the selection of learning opportunities will not be a stand-alone activity, but instead will be embedded in other activities. (e-Lead, 2008)
One can imagine how players learn in the course of a game, for example. They do not first learn how to play the game, and then play it. Rather, they begin playing the game, and as they attempt to achieve goals or perform tasks, the learning they need is provided in that context. (Wagner, 2008)
The ‘personal learning environment’ (PLE) is a collection of concepts intended to express this idea. ( Liber, 2006)
The PLE is not an application, but rather, a description of the process of learning in situ from a variety of courses and according to one’s personal, context-situated, needs. The process, simply, is that learners will be presented with learning resources according to their interests, aptitudes, educational levels, and other factors (including employer factor and social factors) while they are in the process of working at their job, engaging in a hobby, or playing a game.
The environment that they happen to be in, whether it be a productivity tool, hobbyist web page, or online game, constitutes (at that time) the personal learning environment. Resources from across the internet are accessed from that environment: resources that conform to the student’s needs and interests, that have been in some way pre-selected or favorably filtered, and that may have been created by production studios, teachers, other students, or the student him or herself. Content - interaction, media, data - flows back and forth between the learning environment and the external resources, held together by the single identity being employed by the learner in this context.
In time, the learning management systems deployed by educational institutions will evolve into educational delivery systems usable by personal learning environments. They will, in essence, be the ‘remote resource’ accessed from a given context.
Educational delivery systems will recognize the identity of the student making the request and will coordinate with other online applications (which may include commercial brokers, open resource repositories, or additional student records) to facilitate the student’s learning activity.
We might think that these educational delivery systems will be delivering learning objects. This is not entirely incorrect, although a learning object today has come to be seen as more like a unit of text in a textbook or a lesson in a programmed learning workbook. It will be more accurate in the future to say ‘learning resource’, since many such resources will be available that do not conform to the traditional picture of a learning object - and may be as simply as a single image, or as complex as a simulation or training module.
*(de-Marcos, L., Pages, C., Martinez, J., & Gutierrez, J. (2007). Competency-based Learning Object Sequencing using Particle Swarms. Retrieved September 03, 2008, from 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence).
End of Part 1
The Future of Online Learning
The Future of Online Learning: Ten Years On (Part 2/2)
by Stephen Downes
Content Versus Conversation
Our picture of learning technology today – whether it be an LMS like Blackboard or Desire2Learn, an authoring system such as Connexions, or a resource such as OpenCourseWare - is that learning systems are essentially content delivery systems. Hence, they are typically based on a publication model of storage and distribution, are institutionally based, and tend to focus on mass deliveries of common materials to classes or cohorts. We see this in the design of the system, the technical specifications (such as ‘content packaging’) and in their deployment.
The personal learning environment, however, is not based on the principle of access to resources. It should more accurately be viewed as a mechanism to interact with multiple services. (Milligan, 2006)
The personal learning environment is more of a conferencing tool than it is a content tool. The focus of a personal learning environment is more on creation and communication than it is consumption and completion. It is best to think of the interfaces facilitated by a personal learning environment as ways to create and manipulate content, as applications rather than resources. In particular, that the various channels created by the PLE enable is for a student to form a set of connections with a collection of individuals at any given point.
In 1998, I referred to this as the Quest Model, based on the idea of ad hoc collections of people grouping together to solve puzzles in online multi-user environments such as Multi User Dungeons (MUDs). This model has become much more widespread, but no less ad hoc, as people today connect with each other to have distributed conversations, to create wiki entries, to collect resources in discussion threads, and like activities.
In the Quest Model, each achievement would become a part of a personal profile, a part of a learning record that would in turn inform future challenges. This idea is reflected today in the concept of the e-portfolio, where the products created through the process of engagement and interaction are stored and (digitally) mounted for display.
We see today the idea of an e-portfolio taking hold outside traditional learning - people have their own blogs, their own Flickr photo portfolios, art projects on Deviant Art, game modifications, fan fiction, open source software, and much more.
The products of our conversations are as concrete as test scores and grades. (Ryan, 2007) But, as the result of a complex and interactive process, they are much more complex, allowing not only for the measurement of learning, but also for the recognition of learning.
As it becomes easier to simply see what a student can accomplish, the idea of a coarse-grained proxy, such as grades, will fade to the background.
Connectivism
The educational institution is unlikely to disappear, but it is unlikely also to remain the sole locus of student learning.
Educational institutions will need more and more to think of themselves as part of a larger system, and as their offerings as entities that will become a part of, and interact with, the larger environment. Consider, for example, the photo editor that connects to Flickr, described above. Now imagine what an art appreciation resource would look like, how it would interact with Flickr photos. (Unattributed, 2006)
Educational technologists should additionally not only think of themselves as building systems that contribute to the network of resources, but also of systems that draw from that network to create value-added resources.
For example, a recent TED demonstration saw an application that created a three-dimensional composite image of Notre Dame Cathedral composed from thousands of Flickr photos. (Arcas, 2007) Educational institutions can in the same way create pictures of our understanding of other - less concrete - concepts that can be found in the thousands and millions of bits of content created by people around the world.
This is the fundamental understanding behind a learning theory developed to describe learning in networks, connectivism. (Siemens, 2004) The theory proposes that knowledge is contained, not merely in the bits of information transmitted to and fro as content and creations, but in the way these contents, and the people that create them, link together.
Just as the activation of the pixels on a television screen form an image of a person, so also the bits of information we create and we consume form patterns constituting the basis of our knowledge, and learning is consequently the training our own individualized neural networks - our brains - to recognize these patterns.
The purpose of educational institutions, therefore, is not merely to create and distribute learning opportunities and resources, but also to facilitate a student’s participation in a learning environment - a game, a community, a profession - through the provision of the materials that will assist him or her to, in a sense, see the world in the same way as an accomplished expert; and this is accomplished not merely by presenting learning materials to the learner, but by facilitating the engagement of the learner in conversations with members of that community of experts.
Learning resource sharing networks, such as Globe, are small, ineffective, and exclusive. However, institutions are beginning to learn to prepare content for distribution through remote systems, such as the provision of lectures for delivery through iTunes University.
Such systems will evolve over time into a mature system of open content distribution, facilitated through open access mandates, repository and other server software, and content and interaction standards.
Flow and Syndication
Understanding learning as ‘conversation’ ( Sharples, 2005) also allows us to look at the management and distribution of learning resources a bit differently.
Today, as noted above, we tend to think of such resources as static and bibliographical, like books in a library, where contents are ‘published’ and then ‘stored’. This view is evident in much of the discussion that surrounds learning technology today.
We think of work as being stored in a research repository, indexed and archived, in such a way that we can search for them, typically through a catalogue (or metadata) system, and retrieve them. (Barker, 2007) The major concerns of educators in this environment are things like persistence and provenance, copyright and reproduction. (Jantz & Giarlo, 2005)
In the networked learning environment, however, learning resources are best thought of not as content objects about a discipline that are retrieved and studied, but rather as words in a multimedia vocabulary that is used by students and teachers in an ongoing conversation within a discipline to engage in projects and activities. (Downes, The New Literacy, 2002)
Content and learning resources, rather than being thought of as static objects, ought to be thought of as a dynamic flow. They are more like water or electricity and they are like books and artifacts.
Probably the most significant development in the last ten years has been the deployment of the Rich Site Summary standard - RSS - that allowed content creators to syndicate their writings and other creations. Using RSS feed readers, web users do not go to web pages or search for content, but rather, subscribe to RSS feeds and let the content come to them. (Downes, An Introduction to RSS for Educational Designers, 2003)
Most educators, and most educational institutions, have not yet embraced the idea of flow and syndication in learning. They will - reluctantly - because it provides the learner with the means to manage and control his or her learning. They can keep unwanted content to a minimum (and this includes unwanted content from an institution). And they can manage many more sources - or content streams - using feed reader technology.
RSS and related specifications will be one of the primary ways Personal Learning Environments connect with remote systems. To use a PLE will be essentially to immerse oneself in the flow of communications that constitutes a community of practice in some discipline or domain on the internet.
What It Isn’t
When people think of personalized online learning, they frequently think of adaptive systems, learning programs powered by artificial intelligences that test a student’s competence, formulate customized lesson plans based on those pre-tests, and then measure a student’s performance though a series of online activities. (Boticario & Santos, 2007)
While people will no doubt pursue solo learning activities (just as they, by themselves, read books today) this will not constitute the core of the learning experience in the future (just as reading books does not constitute the core of learning today).
Even though learning systems will be able to auto-grade tests, will be able to track progress through a set of learning activities, and will be able to facilitate a wide variety of measures, these results will not constitute, by themselves, ‘evidence’ of learning.
Students will demand that there be a human element to evaluation, as they realize that their own performance is varied and complex, and may not be measured accurately by a machine, and employers and others will require a human element, because they will understand that humans devise endless schemes to ‘game’ or otherwise trick automated systems.
In the end, what will be evaluated is a complex portfolio of a student’s online activities. (Syverson & Slatin, 2006) These will include not only the results from games and other competitions with other people and with simulators, but also their creative work, their multimedia projects, their interactions with other people in ongoing or ad hoc projects, and the myriad details we consider when we consider whether or not a person is well educated.
Though there will continue to be ‘degrees’, these will be based on a mechanism of evaluation and recognition, rather than a lockstep marching through a prepared curriculum. And educational institutions will not have a monopoly on such evaluations (though the more prestigious ones will recognize the value of aggregating and assessing evaluations from other sources).
Earning a degree will, in such a world, resemble less a series of tests and hurdles, and will come to resemble more a process of making a name for oneself in a community. The recommendation of one person by another as a peer will, in the end, become the standard of educational value, not the grade or degree.
by Stephen Downes
Content Versus Conversation
Our picture of learning technology today – whether it be an LMS like Blackboard or Desire2Learn, an authoring system such as Connexions, or a resource such as OpenCourseWare - is that learning systems are essentially content delivery systems. Hence, they are typically based on a publication model of storage and distribution, are institutionally based, and tend to focus on mass deliveries of common materials to classes or cohorts. We see this in the design of the system, the technical specifications (such as ‘content packaging’) and in their deployment.
The personal learning environment, however, is not based on the principle of access to resources. It should more accurately be viewed as a mechanism to interact with multiple services. (Milligan, 2006)
The personal learning environment is more of a conferencing tool than it is a content tool. The focus of a personal learning environment is more on creation and communication than it is consumption and completion. It is best to think of the interfaces facilitated by a personal learning environment as ways to create and manipulate content, as applications rather than resources. In particular, that the various channels created by the PLE enable is for a student to form a set of connections with a collection of individuals at any given point.
In 1998, I referred to this as the Quest Model, based on the idea of ad hoc collections of people grouping together to solve puzzles in online multi-user environments such as Multi User Dungeons (MUDs). This model has become much more widespread, but no less ad hoc, as people today connect with each other to have distributed conversations, to create wiki entries, to collect resources in discussion threads, and like activities.
In the Quest Model, each achievement would become a part of a personal profile, a part of a learning record that would in turn inform future challenges. This idea is reflected today in the concept of the e-portfolio, where the products created through the process of engagement and interaction are stored and (digitally) mounted for display.
We see today the idea of an e-portfolio taking hold outside traditional learning - people have their own blogs, their own Flickr photo portfolios, art projects on Deviant Art, game modifications, fan fiction, open source software, and much more.
The products of our conversations are as concrete as test scores and grades. (Ryan, 2007) But, as the result of a complex and interactive process, they are much more complex, allowing not only for the measurement of learning, but also for the recognition of learning.
As it becomes easier to simply see what a student can accomplish, the idea of a coarse-grained proxy, such as grades, will fade to the background.
Connectivism
The educational institution is unlikely to disappear, but it is unlikely also to remain the sole locus of student learning.
Educational institutions will need more and more to think of themselves as part of a larger system, and as their offerings as entities that will become a part of, and interact with, the larger environment. Consider, for example, the photo editor that connects to Flickr, described above. Now imagine what an art appreciation resource would look like, how it would interact with Flickr photos. (Unattributed, 2006)
Educational technologists should additionally not only think of themselves as building systems that contribute to the network of resources, but also of systems that draw from that network to create value-added resources.
For example, a recent TED demonstration saw an application that created a three-dimensional composite image of Notre Dame Cathedral composed from thousands of Flickr photos. (Arcas, 2007) Educational institutions can in the same way create pictures of our understanding of other - less concrete - concepts that can be found in the thousands and millions of bits of content created by people around the world.
This is the fundamental understanding behind a learning theory developed to describe learning in networks, connectivism. (Siemens, 2004) The theory proposes that knowledge is contained, not merely in the bits of information transmitted to and fro as content and creations, but in the way these contents, and the people that create them, link together.
Just as the activation of the pixels on a television screen form an image of a person, so also the bits of information we create and we consume form patterns constituting the basis of our knowledge, and learning is consequently the training our own individualized neural networks - our brains - to recognize these patterns.
The purpose of educational institutions, therefore, is not merely to create and distribute learning opportunities and resources, but also to facilitate a student’s participation in a learning environment - a game, a community, a profession - through the provision of the materials that will assist him or her to, in a sense, see the world in the same way as an accomplished expert; and this is accomplished not merely by presenting learning materials to the learner, but by facilitating the engagement of the learner in conversations with members of that community of experts.
Learning Resources
As discussed above, educational institutions will need to see themselves as providers of learning resources (and not merely learning objects). These resources will be online services that connect students with:
learning content: games, simulations, and other activities;ad hoc communities of learners; and experts and other practitioners.
They will be specialized multimedia content consumption, editing and authoring systems designed to facilitate a student’s ability to perceive and perform as modeled by experts in a community of practice.
These resources will not be inert content objects, but rather, will need to be able to learn about the environment they are being offered in, be able to learn about the student, and to get this information not just locally but from wherever it may be on the internet. Thus, such resources must be able to communicate state and other information to and from other (authorized) systems and services. They may, therefore, be fully-fledged web services, but they are just as likely to be lightweight applications depending on other simple services to do much of this work for them.
Today, institutions do not yet know how to deliver information to other systems. Beyond interlibrary loans, we have (at best) identity federation systems such as
Learning resource sharing networks, such as Globe, are small, ineffective, and exclusive. However, institutions are beginning to learn to prepare content for distribution through remote systems, such as the provision of lectures for delivery through iTunes University.
Such systems will evolve over time into a mature system of open content distribution, facilitated through open access mandates, repository and other server software, and content and interaction standards.
Flow and Syndication
Understanding learning as ‘conversation’ ( Sharples, 2005) also allows us to look at the management and distribution of learning resources a bit differently.
Today, as noted above, we tend to think of such resources as static and bibliographical, like books in a library, where contents are ‘published’ and then ‘stored’. This view is evident in much of the discussion that surrounds learning technology today.
We think of work as being stored in a research repository, indexed and archived, in such a way that we can search for them, typically through a catalogue (or metadata) system, and retrieve them. (Barker, 2007) The major concerns of educators in this environment are things like persistence and provenance, copyright and reproduction. (Jantz & Giarlo, 2005)
In the networked learning environment, however, learning resources are best thought of not as content objects about a discipline that are retrieved and studied, but rather as words in a multimedia vocabulary that is used by students and teachers in an ongoing conversation within a discipline to engage in projects and activities. (Downes, The New Literacy, 2002)
Content and learning resources, rather than being thought of as static objects, ought to be thought of as a dynamic flow. They are more like water or electricity and they are like books and artifacts.
The technology of learning - and of the web generally - is evolving to accommodate flow. (
Jarche, Learning is Conversation, 2005)Probably the most significant development in the last ten years has been the deployment of the Rich Site Summary standard - RSS - that allowed content creators to syndicate their writings and other creations. Using RSS feed readers, web users do not go to web pages or search for content, but rather, subscribe to RSS feeds and let the content come to them. (Downes, An Introduction to RSS for Educational Designers, 2003)
Most educators, and most educational institutions, have not yet embraced the idea of flow and syndication in learning. They will - reluctantly - because it provides the learner with the means to manage and control his or her learning. They can keep unwanted content to a minimum (and this includes unwanted content from an institution). And they can manage many more sources - or content streams - using feed reader technology.
RSS and related specifications will be one of the primary ways Personal Learning Environments connect with remote systems. To use a PLE will be essentially to immerse oneself in the flow of communications that constitutes a community of practice in some discipline or domain on the internet.
What It Isn’t
When people think of personalized online learning, they frequently think of adaptive systems, learning programs powered by artificial intelligences that test a student’s competence, formulate customized lesson plans based on those pre-tests, and then measure a student’s performance though a series of online activities. (Boticario & Santos, 2007)
While people will no doubt pursue solo learning activities (just as they, by themselves, read books today) this will not constitute the core of the learning experience in the future (just as reading books does not constitute the core of learning today).
Even though learning systems will be able to auto-grade tests, will be able to track progress through a set of learning activities, and will be able to facilitate a wide variety of measures, these results will not constitute, by themselves, ‘evidence’ of learning.
Students will demand that there be a human element to evaluation, as they realize that their own performance is varied and complex, and may not be measured accurately by a machine, and employers and others will require a human element, because they will understand that humans devise endless schemes to ‘game’ or otherwise trick automated systems.
In the end, what will be evaluated is a complex portfolio of a student’s online activities. (Syverson & Slatin, 2006) These will include not only the results from games and other competitions with other people and with simulators, but also their creative work, their multimedia projects, their interactions with other people in ongoing or ad hoc projects, and the myriad details we consider when we consider whether or not a person is well educated.
Though there will continue to be ‘degrees’, these will be based on a mechanism of evaluation and recognition, rather than a lockstep marching through a prepared curriculum. And educational institutions will not have a monopoly on such evaluations (though the more prestigious ones will recognize the value of aggregating and assessing evaluations from other sources).
Earning a degree will, in such a world, resemble less a series of tests and hurdles, and will come to resemble more a process of making a name for oneself in a community. The recommendation of one person by another as a peer will, in the end, become the standard of educational value, not the grade or degree.
Originally written by Stephen Downes for OLDaily and first published on November 16th, 2008 as "The Future of Online Learning: Ten Years On".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
