MOOC promoters continually claim that their products provide technologies that have never appeared in face-to-face classrooms. While I don’t disagree that my courses have lacked fun ways to draw molecules (because I teach in the humanities), I do find their insistence that traditional higher ed lacks technological advances to be odd. If you took the MOOC prophets seriously, it would seem that all real-time professors do is lecture to bored students. – See more at: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/768-teaching-and-the-university-of-tomorrow#sthash.RuCJxbAU.dpuf
What I believe Kelly Backer [intentionally?] misses to say is that MOOC claims to be progressive, meaning “a new mode/model” of teaching, but it relays on the old (from medieval times) values: the attempt to put “skin in the game” or pay for certificates, fails, since, according to Backer, the employers don’t care about those certificates. It is not sufficient to “move” the teaching process in the “future,” if the evaluation process remains in the medieval terms.
Of course, not all aspects of online course design require a team of specialists, a longer development time, and more funding. Some things can be done quickly, cheaply and by individuals with focused skill sets.
But technology can, when built with a deep understanding of how students learn, meet both of these needs. We can build online courses that provide students with hundreds of opportunities to test their knowledge. Using scientifically-based learning analytics, we can provide each learner with immediate, context-specific feedback. We can build software that constantly responds to each student’s cognitive and educational differences and serves up activities that address these differences.
Higher education institutions are abuzz with the concept of Open Badges. The concept was presented to SCSU CETL some two years ago, but it remained mute on the SCSU campus. Part of the presentation to the SCSU CETL included the assertion that “Some advocates have suggested that badges representing learning and skills acquired outside the classroom, or even in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), will soon supplant diplomas and course credits.”
“For higher education institutions interested in keeping pace, establishing a digital ecosystem around badges to recognize college learning, skill development and achievement is less a threat and more an opportunity. Used properly, Open Badge systems help motivate, connect, articulate and make transparent the learning that happens inside and outside classrooms during a student’s college years.”
Educational programs that use learning design to attach badges to educational experiences according to defined outcomes can streamline credit recognition.
The badge ecosystem isn’t just a web-enabled transcript, CV, and work portfolio rolled together. It’s also a way to structure the process of education itself. Students will be able to customize learning goals within the larger curricular framework, integrate continuing peer and faculty feedback about their progress toward achieving those goals, and tailor the way badges and the metadata within them are displayed to the outside world.
in the latest news about scandals regarding technology acquisition for schools, it is only fair to ask ourselves: how much involved do we WANT/NEED to be in the decision making process regarding such timely issue. How much do we need to educate ourselves on 1. technology? 2. application of technology in education? compatible choices of technology, including performance, prices and brands? Do we discuss such issues or just let people above us and/or elected by us make the choices? What is your opinion?
What is your opinion about open source and alternative mobile devices?