Saying that the MOOC debate rages on is rather like saying, "Mosquitoes bother me," yet I encounter that quotidian statement in pretty much every article I read regarding the issue. It probably doesn't help that the name itself sounds like some street-level pejorative but we use the words we have, not the ones we want.
As a fairly-new construct of how knowledge is delivered, MOOCs would naturally be controversial based on their relatively recent introduction to the education field. However, aside from stale arguments that MOOCs can't deliver what classroom instruction can (an argument that has existed since the introduction of the first online course), most of the arguments I've encountered against MOOCs have been specious, at best.
Probably the most contentious issue surrounding MOOCs is their potential for social and economic equality (as I argued for in the this paper) and it's funny how ironic arguments from the Left and the Right cavil about the death of the academy, the Left squealing about how universities should be opened up to everyone, the Right whining about the death of elite institutions.
Putting matters of delivery aside, MOOCs are the first step in an educational revolution, where learners decide what knowledge matters to them and that knowledge is delivered to them as it matters. For the first time in human history, learners have the capacity to attain knowledge no matter their circumstances or geographical isolation (provided they have a broadband connection). The potential for economic and social justice is here and it's about to be manifest.
Are MOOCs a nostrum? Not at all -- the problem of income inequality has to be dealt with, first and foremost. However, the potential to undercut the current system has begun with MOOCs, especially as learners from marginalized populations take advantage of their educational opportunities an use that position to bring up brothers and sisters.
Indeed, the potential for social and economic change is huge due to the possibles afforded through informal learning opportunities. That possibility will be dealt with in a later post.
Crossposted at The Firebird Suite
Showing posts with label FotM (Flavor of the Month). Show all posts
Showing posts with label FotM (Flavor of the Month). Show all posts
Monday, June 30, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
My PBL rant for this week
I'll admit that I was immediately intrigued by the potential for encouraging problem-solving strategies in learners when I approached my first instructional design project, intuitively thinking that the approach led to more depth and breadth in learners. After all, in my own experience with problem solving, learning was deeper when I was required to identify the problem, think of a solution, test my solution (and then make revisions when my idea was less than satisfactory) and then present my results. It just made sense to me that, when challenged with having to look closely at a problem and then creatively and deductively develop a solution.
Indeed, in enumerating the ten key elements of PBL, John Barell provides a succinct rationale for why problem-solving strategies create more depth and breadth in learning objectives. Barell said those elements are real-world problems, choices about content, objectives reflecting the highest of intellectual challenges, experiences in small-group collaborations, feedback (from cohorts and instructors), revisions, modifications and elaboration on findings, engagement in planning, obtaining pre-, formative and summative assessment information, "clear and easy-to-follow curricular structure centered on authentic problems and inquiry," and shared control of decision making as well as instruction and learning. With those elements, it's evident how problem solving goes well beyond a teacher merely lecturing and explaining.
PBL is not without its critics, however, and Colliver (2000), in a review of research conducted between 1992 and 1998 on the effectiveness of PBL on outcomes, concluded that the evidence did not support the idea that PBL methods were more advantageous than traditional teaching methods. However, in a later review of the literature, Hmelo-silver (2004) reached a different conclusion regarding the research but cautioned, "[M]uch of the research has been restricted to higher education, predominantly in medical schools."
Although PBL may be a "flavor of the month" (which is all too common in education), it is apparent to me that it will continue to find support from both educators and students. In fact, the idea of the effectiveness of PBL has been around since at least Dewey who, by his own admission, recognized its effectiveness in the tradition of apprenticeship.
As far as my own prejudice regarding the effectiveness of problem-solving strategies, I believe it not just demands critical thinking skills but is complex (RE Barells elements) in a way that standard, flat pedagogy is not.
Indeed, in enumerating the ten key elements of PBL, John Barell provides a succinct rationale for why problem-solving strategies create more depth and breadth in learning objectives. Barell said those elements are real-world problems, choices about content, objectives reflecting the highest of intellectual challenges, experiences in small-group collaborations, feedback (from cohorts and instructors), revisions, modifications and elaboration on findings, engagement in planning, obtaining pre-, formative and summative assessment information, "clear and easy-to-follow curricular structure centered on authentic problems and inquiry," and shared control of decision making as well as instruction and learning. With those elements, it's evident how problem solving goes well beyond a teacher merely lecturing and explaining.
PBL is not without its critics, however, and Colliver (2000), in a review of research conducted between 1992 and 1998 on the effectiveness of PBL on outcomes, concluded that the evidence did not support the idea that PBL methods were more advantageous than traditional teaching methods. However, in a later review of the literature, Hmelo-silver (2004) reached a different conclusion regarding the research but cautioned, "[M]uch of the research has been restricted to higher education, predominantly in medical schools."
Although PBL may be a "flavor of the month" (which is all too common in education), it is apparent to me that it will continue to find support from both educators and students. In fact, the idea of the effectiveness of PBL has been around since at least Dewey who, by his own admission, recognized its effectiveness in the tradition of apprenticeship.
As far as my own prejudice regarding the effectiveness of problem-solving strategies, I believe it not just demands critical thinking skills but is complex (RE Barells elements) in a way that standard, flat pedagogy is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)