There is also a sharp political divide in how concerned parents are about the impact of the coronavirus on their children’s education, a Gallup survey shows. https://t.co/4I5bglvZfJ
Two important caveats: The ability to access the internet is crucial for the survey respondents. And the poll has a relatively significant margin of error.
Importantly, today’s educators in the digital-era have a range of new teaching methods, activities and resources they can consider when choosing their learning designs. Although the traditional face-to-face lecture is not dead, delivering a monologue for an hour to a passive audience of learners is hardly the gold standard of good teaching in the 21st Century–irrespective of delivery mode. This point should not be overlooked in the rush to replace conventional teaching with live online sessions using platforms like Zoom.
Most importantly, what we want to avoid is using old 19th Century teaching methods on new 21st Century technologies to merely dump large volumes of undigested information down large digital diameter pipes to relatively inactive and passive learners.
ICDE has a series of forthcoming webinars you can join and you will find around a dozen different types of online course offerings available right now for educators on our NIDL Resource Bank.
this faculty group conversation is the result of the Zoom issues lately:
Hi everyone, I’m looking for a video conferencing tool/platform that does not need to be downloaded onto a student device (the way that Zoom does, so no Zoom), and operates through a website or in the cloud. It needs to be safe, student friendly, and can accommodate a group of 20, also needs to be able to be used with an iPad. Thoughts? Much appreciated.
8×8.vc https://8×8.vc/ – doesn’t work on safari but chrome/firefox on laptops. on mobile, you’ll need to download the 8×8 Video Meetings app. I’ve used it with over 60 people and it works just fine. If you pick a sufficiently random room name that will stop anyone from guessing it and jumping in. It has screen sharing, call in ability. You can’t kick anyone and if you mute people, they can unmute themselves… there is no “host” but it works pretty well for what I’ve needed lately.
Algorithmic test proctoring’s settings have discriminatory consequences across multiple identities and serious privacy implications.
While racist technology calibrated for white skin isn’t new (everything from photography to soap dispensers do this), we see it deployed through face detection and facial recognition used by algorithmic proctoring systems.
While some test proctoring companies develop their own facial recognition software, most purchase software developed by other companies, but these technologies generally function similarly and have shown a consistent inability to identify people with darker skin or even tell the difference between Chinese people. Facial recognition literally encodes the invisibility of Black people and the racist stereotype that all Asian people look the same.
As Os Keyes has demonstrated, facial recognition has a terrible history with gender. This means that a software asking students to verify their identity is compromising for students who identify as trans, non-binary, or express their gender in ways counter to cis/heteronormativity.
These features and settings create a system of asymmetric surveillance and lack of accountability, things which have always created a risk for abuse and sexual harassment. Technologies like these have a long history of being abused, largely by heterosexual men at the expense of women’s bodies, privacy, and dignity.
my note: I am repeating this for years
Sean Michael Morris and Jesse Stommel’s ongoing critique of Turnitin, a plagiarism detection software, outlines exactly how this logic operates in ed-tech and higher education: 1) don’t trust students, 2) surveil them, 3) ignore the complexity of writing and citation, and 4) monetize the data.
Technological Solutionism
Cheating is not a technological problem, but a social and pedagogical problem.
Our habit of believing that technology will solve pedagogical problems is endemic to narratives produced by the ed-tech community and, as Audrey Watters writes, is tied to the Silicon Valley culture that often funds it. Scholars have been dismantling the narrative of technological solutionism and neutrality for some time now. In her book “Algorithms of Oppression,” Safiya Umoja Noble demonstrates how the algorithms that are responsible for Google Search amplify and “reinforce oppressive social relationships and enact new modes of racial profiling.”
Anna Lauren Hoffmann, who coined the term “data violence” to describe the impact harmful technological systems have on people and how these systems retain the appearance of objectivity despite the disproportionate harm they inflict on marginalized communities.
This system of measuring bodies and behaviors, associating certain bodies and behaviors with desirability and others with inferiority, engages in what Lennard J. Davis calls the Eugenic Gaze.
Higher education is deeply complicit in the eugenics movement. Nazism borrowed many of its ideas about racial purity from the American school of eugenics, and universities were instrumental in supporting eugenics research by publishing copious literature on it, establishing endowed professorships, institutes, and scholarly societies that spearheaded eugenic research and propaganda.
Second, another reason that there cannot be a definitive answer to this question is the diversity of stakeholders in online education. Yong Zhao: Does it Work? The Most Meaningless Question to Ask about Online Education https://t.co/LNqv2YYb40pic.twitter.com/SKG1jCyudo
— Ana Cristina Pratas (@AnaCristinaPrts) April 2, 2020
One of the most frequently and persistently asked questions about online education is “does it work” or “is it effective.”
The question is meaningless because there cannot be any definitive answer for a number of reasons.
First, online education (and its variants such a online instruction, online teaching, distance education and distance learning) is a big umbrella that covers a wide array of different practices, which vary a great deal in terms of quality. Comparing the effectiveness of online education with face-to-face education has been the most common research approach to examine the effectiveness of online education. And the answer has been, for a long time, that there is no significant difference between the two. This answer, however, does not mean online is effective or not, it simply means there are plenty of effective and ineffective programs in both online and face-to-face education. In other words, the within variation is larger than the between variation.
Second, another reason that there cannot be a definitive answer to this question is the diversity of stakeholders in online education.
And unfortunately what works for one stakeholder may not work for the others.
Third, even within the same program and with only students as the stakeholder, there cannot be a definitive answer because no program can possibly have the same effects on all students equally.
Fourth, yet another reason that the question cannot have a definitive answer is the multiplicity of outcomes. Education outcomes include more than what has been typically measured by grades or tests.
Fifth, the rapid changes in technology that can be used to deliver online education add to the elusiveness of a definitive answer to the question. While pedagogy, design, and human actors certainly paly a significant role in the experiences of online education, so does technology.
The Babson Survey Research Group, an organization that tracks online enrollment, notes that between 2012 and 2016 the percent of online enrollment in universities increased 17.2 percent while overall enrollment decreased. But that expansion doesn’t necessarily correlate with how the public perceives the quality of online courses, historically questioned for its lack of rigor and limited measurable learning gains.
A Gallup poll conducted back in 2015, found that 46 percent of Americans “strongly agree” or “agree” that online colleges and universities offer a high-quality education—up 30 percent from when the poll was conducted in 2011.
However, researchers caveat these findings, noting that these perception changes happen within particular pockets and are sometimes the result of strategic practices, such as universities not listing the medium of learning on student transcripts.
The last academic leader perception survey released by the Babson Research Group was in 2016.
“We’ve had more and more of the group in the middle that said, ‘I’m not sure’ move into a pro online learning stance,” says Seaman, speaking of the academic leaders he surveyed in the past. “The negative group [those who viewed online learning negatively] had not wavered at all. The positive group did not waiver at all, but we had a steady migration flow of academic leaders in the middle.”
Lowenthal has also researched student perceptions of online learning in the past, finding that learners tend to give such courses more negative evaluations than in-person courses. He says that the findings may represent the lack of experience some educators have teaching in online classrooms. He expects that to change over time, noting that good teachers in person will eventually become good teachers online.
Jones, C., Watkins, F., Williams, J., Lambros, A., Callahan, K., Lawlor, J., … Atkinson, H. (2019). A 360-degree assessment of teaching effectiveness using a structured-videorecorded observed teaching exercise for faculty development. Medical Education Online, 24(1), 1596708. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1596708
enable faculty to receive a detailed 360-degree assessment of their teaching
The faculty in Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine (WFSM) saw an opportunity to incorporate a focused teaching practicum for faculty within a multiple-specialty faculty development program. 360-degree assessments involve a combination of feedback from subordinates, colleagues and superiors. 360-degree feedback has been considered an essential tool in transformational leadership because the evaluation process avoids bias through diversity of viewpoints represented, and it is rarely applied to teaching assessments. Specifically, we designed a teaching practicum using a Videorecorded Observed Teaching Exercise (VOTE) to provide self-, peer- and learner assessments of teaching
Our design of videorecorded microteaching sessions embedded into a faculty development program presents a feasible, well-received model to provide faculty development in teaching and a robust 360-degree assessment of teaching skills.
Two strengths of our program are that it is feasible and reproducible.
In addition, costs for these sessions were low. VOTE video capture costs ranged from $45 – $90 per session depending on the audiovisual capacity of the room used for recording. Costs for this activity included an audiovisual technician who performed the room setup and videorecording. However, a handheld videorecorder or mobile device could be used for these sessions as well.
