The Internet as a Tool of Education
April 29
You are enrolled in (and hopefully not yet tired of!) a class with students across the country and around the globe, where, through a mix of in-person and online learning, we have been able to explore considerable territory around the Internet and how it is controlled. We have availed ourselves of many of the benefits of the web in doing so: all of our class reading has been publicly-accessible web sites, we use Internet applications like Adobe Connect and the HES platform to deliver content and solicit responses, and the syllabus itself is built on open-source coding designed for collaborative engagement.
But we are still in a fairly traditional model of pedagogy - though one that I hope has been effective this semester. As we wind down our studies, consider for a moment the ways in which this technology can be used for far more radical forms of education, and who stands to benefit from such tools.
Joining us will be Justin Reich, Berkman Fellow and the Richard L. Menschel HarvardX Research Fellow, and Ana Enriquez, Berkman Fellow and Head Teaching Fellow of CopyrightX.
Readings
- Modern distance education
- What is new and what is not?
- Radio Berkman, Wikis, Teaching, and the Digital Divide (audio, about 18 mins., listen to all)
- Concerns, doubts, and issues
- Case Studies - HarvardX and CopyrightX
Optional Readings
Videos Watched in Class
Links
Professor Fisher: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10270/Fisher
The CopyrightX website: http://copyx.org/
List of Satellites: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/copyrightx/satellites/
The CopyrightX YouTube videos in the Berkman YouTube feed: https://www.youtube.com/user/BerkmanCenter/videos
You can see the question tool here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/list.php
Terry Fisher will be the director of the Berkman Center through end of June. Then Zittrain takes over: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/9116
Forthcoming book from Berkman Faculty Associate Judith Donath: http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Machine-Designs-Living/dp/0262027011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398808182&sr=8-1&keywords=judith+donath
Justin Reich's website: http://www.edtechresearcher.com
edX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdX
Harvard Classics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics
The "Munchers" games from Justin's (and my) childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchers
Moocthulhu: http://moocthulhu.com/
The reference to Cthulhu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu
Connectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism
Stephen Downes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downes
The MacGuffin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin
Story about someone who made a computer that can defeat machine essay graders by generating nonsense A-grade essays: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/29/5664310/machine-generated-nonsense-might-score-better-than-you-on-the-gmat
DS106: http://ds106.us/
Thorndike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Thorndike
Dewey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
Esquires top 15 mustaches in history: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/mens-fashion/best-mustache-1113
Walter Lippman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann (from role of citizens in journalism debates with Dewey)
Papert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert
Logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%28programming_language%29
Official Logo site: http://www.microworlds.com
Rainbow Loom videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rainbow+loom
16 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI7AkI5dJzo
Khan Academy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_academy
Paul Tough - How Children Succeed: http://www.amazon.com/How-Children-Succeed-Curiosity-Character/dp/0544104404
Cass Sunstein - Nudge - http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398812324&sr=8-1&keywords=nudge
Knolwedge Map: http://www.khanacademy.org/exercisedashboard
Disruptive Innovation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
Quick name check to "The Pit" in Harvard Square: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Square#Other_features
Justin's essay about Morozov and lure of technological sublime: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2014/01/the_lure_of_the_technological_sublime_morosov_and_the_makers.html
Class Discussion
It caught my attention when Justin Reich in the Radio Berkman podcast points out how technology adoption in schools, particularly wiki use, needs to be paired with a human development strategy (which is usually more often found in schools with higher socioeconomic status). I believe that with human development, the right path can be taken in making sure that technology covers an existing need in a better way than a traditional teaching method would; rather than adopting a new technology that covers non existing need and is therefore unsuccessful. I think this ties with Justin’s observation that technology should be in the service of learning. Luciagamboaso 11:12, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
Is MOOC a Textbook - really got my attention and more importantly, I guess, my imagination - wow to think that someday classrooms could be obsolete is truly fascinating to say the least - But what really got me thinkig is that a bunch of teachers say about 10-20 could come together and basically start thier own online university in just a matter of weeks or months, and get accrediation online accrediation in a few years - and basically work from home perpetually - Or selling their courses to different universities across the globe - Why not, labs and the such could be duplicated - mail order chemistry and biology kits would be all the rage - and you end up creating a new e-commerce. Or not. Dancoron 13:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
In related news, a very interesting read... The Complex: It’s Not Beijing’s Hackers You Should Be Worried About, It’s Moscow’s
"The Russian forces in Ukraine have integrated cyber operations and conventional military tactics in seamless fashion, current and former U.S. officials and experts say." ... "It was textbook operation that combined centuries old combat tactics with cyber-age assaults." ... "U.S. intelligence agencies were largely caught off guard by the Russian invasion. The occupying forces limited their use of radios and cell phones and went mostly undetected by the United States' surveillance networks, current and former officials said, an indication of the Russians' technological savvy." ... "The Russian success is especially stinging for the U.S. because these types of blended attacks -- cyber strikes launched alongside military operations -- are what U.S. military and intelligence officials have for years said will be the hallmarks of America's future way of fighting a war." --Seifip 14:09, 23 April 2014 (EDT)
Has anyone seen this: [1]? It's really thought provoking. On one hand, I see that there is a pertinent argument in that Internet startups might be likely to fail due to not being able to afford to pay the advertising premiums that larger, more established companies can pay, but on the other hand, hasn't this been done already, to some extent? It seems that most internet users utilize search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. to find information, and all of these have advertisers whose sites are pushed to the top of the search results. Add to that the fact that results are almost always displayed based on what sites are visited most, meaning that the largest companies who can afford to either pay to advertise on the site or via other media are already going to be exponentially more likely to garner further clicks, as they will appear before a smaller Internet start up, for instance. It certainly appears that net neutrality is already a mere theory rather than an actual practice. Castille 18:45, 24 April 2014 (EDT)
Listening to the Radio Berkman piece about wikis, teaching, and the digital divide leaves me with some questions about the emphasis on collaboration. While collaboration is an invaluable social skill that should, in a general sense, be fostered in students, it seems that this obscures the fact that many students are not at their best when forced into a collaborative activity. I don't mean to suggest that teachers shouldn't make sure that their students have the ability to collaborate with others, but that still seems distinct from how some students really learn the information/skills at hand. For some, the learning process is less successful/efficient when it's collaborative, and I think there's a trend right now to celebrate collaboration in a way that erases the needs of these other students. This seems to be a particular trend in the tech industries... it makes me think of the increasingly popular open office plans that are supposed to make collaboration easier in the workplace. This mood and the excitement about this way of operating/conducting business reminds me of some of the sort of whimsical, utopian ideas people first had about the Internet. Jkelly 23:12, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
Obviously, as a student enrolled at HES, I think online learning is a wonderful advancement and will change the face of education. Online learning will not only allow individuals more equal access to higher education, but could alleviate the problems that have been incurred by Public universities, like overcrowding and under funding. With this being said, it is likely that online learning will expand to grade school (especially since high schools all over the country have already started online programs), which presents a bevy of potential problems. Technology is a wonderful thing, and same with online education, however there is no substitute for the social and emotional learning one gets from peer-to-peer interaction, especially during one's formative years. Castille 16:44, 27 April 2014 (EDT)
I greatly enjoyed the Gomes article about the impact of online education on quality & level of education, prestige and market value of online education platforms. I agree with Castille that there is no substitute for peer-to-peer interaction and the active & passive learning that are offered by the classroom experience. I also valued Gomes's illustration of the current market for online education and possible advancements and pitfalls that the online model offers. Friends who have received online degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate level experience both direct and more subtle discrimination in the current employment environment, and for me the true value of a degree of course lies in return on investment- there is learning for learning's sake, but far more crucial in today's for-profit educational model is the assurance of upward income mobility and increased marketability that comes with a degree. Like several authors this week, I too anticipate a shift in attitude towards online education and hope that online degrees come to hold the same cachet as typical college and university degrees. akk22 12:08, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
The advances in technology obviously have a great effect in providing greater access to education, especially to people in economically disadvantaged and under developed areas. However, as education and technology improves, I think we will see a shift in how the two interact. There are so many tools that allow for a more catered and individualized approach to education. I think technology will allow for students to pursue different interests and not be constricted to the limited subjects taught at high schools and grade schools. Technology I think will eventually allow us to expand the spectrum of what is taught, shifting from the one-size fits all approach and allowing students to develop other interests. With that said, the importance of social connectivity at schools is important and should never be ruled out. However, greater integration of technology to the school system will fill a gap that at times educators are not able to. Lpereira 19:39, 27 April 2014 (EDT)
The economics behind MOOCs encourage universities to push the movement forward, and I think forcing traditional education workflow in these systems will not maximize the full potential of MOOCs. As previously stated, people learn the best through different mechanisms (collaborative groups or single handedly or a mix of both). I think MOOCs have the potential to be flexible in adjusting not only to a student's interest but also learning style. Personally, I think the biggest barrier of MOOCs is encouraging students to attend and stick to the course schedule. If the dropout rate is high, is that the fault of the MOOC program or the undisciplined student? Hopefully a variety of startups and universities will approach the question of optimizing online education to generate intelligent, efficient thinkers. (Margorm 17:37, 28 April 2014 (EDT))
- I had some similar thoughts about the difficulty of getting students to stay involved with MOOCs. I can imagine that it's much more difficult to stay involved if you're not equipped with some study skills. Technological literacy is obviously required, but I would be curious to know how skills like time management, organization, and various other study skills effect how likely it is a student will stick with the course. I'm sure interest in and purpose of the course are major factors, but knowing how you best succeed as a student must be important too. I wonder if any online courses have some information or suggestions about this? Most of the skills I imagine I would apply here are things I learned in a traditional classroom as a kid-- keeping lists, tracking assignments, etc. Jkelly 09:30, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- I would think for those very reasons, it would behoove employers to actually prioritize students who had been involved in an online learning program (either in conjunction with their brick-and-mortar school or as a solely-online program, given that it was through a legitimate university). Not only does completion of an online program ensure that the individual has a firm grasp of how to operate technology, but also ensures that the individual is a self-starter and able to organize, schedule, and complete their work load in an effective and efficient manner, at least to some extent. Castille 13:42, 1 May 2014 (EDT)
Here's my sampling (and analysis) of the comments made by some of the critics of MOOCs: a) inexperienced founders lacking domain expertise; b) venture capital “bubble”; c) dismissive based on current problems / i.e., no expectation for continuous innovation; d) social arguments about some people being left behind; e) the old guard defending aspects of their product which are in fact not valued quite as much by potential customers as they think it should be; f) failure of the old guard to acknowledge large markets they are currently underserving; g) protective of tradition.
It's interesting how many of the criticisms of MOOCs parallel various critiques of various applications of the Internet before growth and innovation transformed whole industries: examples include games, ecommerce, online encyclopedias, social networking, etc. Online education will be no different.
Another observation: people just hate the idea that their favorite university / alma mater might be sharing some of its pedagogy with the hoi poloi. There's a large contingent of Harvardians and Ivy Leaguers who absolutely detest the idea of the Extension School. It wouldn't be a surprise that some would also detest MOOCs, due to the feeling that it makes their education feel less elite (or the similar perception that students in extension programs are free riders on the university's reputation). Jradoff 13:26, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
As often happens with new technology, MOOCs seem to be blamed for all the problems facing the higher educational system today, when they may in fact be its only hope. The proposition that MOOCs are responsible for reduction of the philosophy department's faculty is preposterous. Will it replace them? Possibly. Would they the faculty get reduced if MOOCs did not exist? Most probably. Many universities already have many professors who read the texbook and the slides and add little value to their courses. Should we start blaming textbooks too? Maybe propose that courses should be improvised, use no external content whatsoever, to maximize the ROI on the professors' salary? No. The solution is to work with the faculty to use external content, whether textbooks, MOOCs or any other, in the correct way that benefits the students and allows them to remain useful and irreplaceable. --Seifip 13:45, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- I completely agree! I think the MOOCs encourage professors to "step up their game", so to speak. I was watching a Yale professor's Philosophy of Death class recently and it was AMAZING-- that's what classes should be! As the MOOCs evolve, I would imagine professors and TA's will actually be even more necessary as people enroll for grades (like this program), which means that interaction and grading will have to occur.Castille 13:42, 1 May 2014 (EDT)
While first approaches to open unlimited participation courses had little success due to reasons; lack of commitment, cheating, no tuition, and no way to monitor who would take tests all played a role. The idea of MOOCs resurfaced in the 2000’s. Several major universities took steps in the development of MOOCs and by the year 2013 there was a hype or “peak” of educational centers rushing to join or set up there own version MOOC. While there were different ways to setup a MOOC, there seems to be two most common ways: "cMOOC" and "xMOOC" were coined by Stephen Downes. Harvard joined with MIT to create edX from late 2012 to the middle of 2013 and, “the first 17 HarvardX and MITx courses launched on the edX platform”. Some of the programs received criticism like Michael Sandel’s JusticeX; the Philosophy Department from San Jose State University sent an open letter first comparing JusticeX to a course then to a textbook. While MOOCs have made much more progress in recent years, completion rates still are in need of improvement before they can be used regularly as credited courses. Emmanuelsurillo 15:51, 29 April 2014 (EDT)
- The last part of what you said seems like a chicken-or-an-egg kind of thing, as I think completion rates would increase if the classes were able to be taken for credit. It is hard enough to stay committed to a course as it is, but to take an educational class purely for the enjoyment of learning, rather than for a grade or some sort of end goal, is nearly impossible! Castille 13:42, 1 May 2014 (EDT)
I think the key's to online learning systems are; 1. people fear what they do not understand, and 2. in the readings we heard the statistics of; most educators take the online platform and teach what they know instead of rethinking the technology and how to newly apply the teaching to it. and 3. Is that there are so many people that are still not adept to the internet, or that can afford high speed internet regularly in order to complete full online degree's. I believe that with a full college degree online platform, they will have to partner with the cable companies in order to proivide the entire service and not leave the connectivity a la carte.
TriciaBy 17:14, 29 April 2014 (EDT)