This week's Educational Technology assignment asked us to explore two companies offering free online classes -- Coursera and the Khan Academy -- and review the material for possible use in our classroom or for our personal lives.
First, a basic impression of what I noticed on the Khan Academy's site. The classes are easily organized into broad categories such as: Math, Science & Engineering, Computing, Test Prep, etc. There's a small section of Arts & Humanities but there are no literature or writing classes and only one class on grammar which is a very general overview that seemed geared toward older rather than young kids. I participated in an Art history class titled "Art of the Islamic World." I also scrolled through a few other options relating to history, government, or math. The videos and assessments were easy but interesting.
As an ELA teacher, I doubt I will ask my students to take a Khan Academy class unless we are reading a book that might benefit from the added context of history or government. While, of course, much of my work is interdisciplinary and does benefit from cultural context, there are other online options (Google Expeditions, for example) that I would turn to before the Khan Academy.
Moreover, for my students, including English language learners, I would prefer more classes about writing. Grammar is okay but is considered a lower-order concern. What benefits my students is learning about different forms of writing, about argument, about different audiences, about accurately summarizing other people's ideas before responding with one's own, and about knowing the purpose for writing in the first place (i.e. sometimes called the "so what?" question).
Finally, I'm still considering Khan's philosophy behind the Academy and his comments in an interview we watched in which he notes a discrepancy between the "product" parents believe they are buying their children when they send them to college (i.e. a highly respected credential that will have a return on investment in the job market) versus what college administrations believe they are selling (a content-rich, mastery-based, experiential growth opportunity that teaches the whole person as much about being a 'good' citizen as about practical content knowledge). He argues that this discrepancy can be corrected by more online credentialing.
I tend to disagree because to me, with the bias of an educator, I don't see the educational trend toward better credentialing as true progress. I'm concerned that even offering "certificates" or other credentials for completion of these free courses will not actually make a person competitive for a leadership role in a global market, but it will make them think they are competitive. What I see from students who go on to be global leaders is that they focus not on the acquisition of short-term credentialing but on the long-term cultivation of ontological skills. For me, a 21st century education involves daily practice of skills like creativity, collaboration, flexibility, resilience, problem-solving, and communication. I don't see this as the core mission of the Khan Academy.
On the other hand, Coursera offers free online classes in which learning is sustained over a longer time period. Their site is similar to Khan's in that there are a range of disciplines but an emphasis on STEM. Once again, no literature or writing classes. Therefore, like the Khan Academy, it may not be as useful for my ELA teaching as other resources.
Personally, my husband or I have taken a couple classes that took us several weeks to complete and we enjoyed the experience of these classes. I still remember some of the information I learned and I liked the interactive element. Something that Coursera does well is provide opportunities for deep learning. There are various formative assessments sprinkled throughout the lecture experience and the summative assessments move students up Bloom's Taxonomy.
As for whether MOOC's are the "wave of the future," I think they are the wave of a future for some people. I love that learning is free and designed by professional educators. I like that students who cannot attend traditional brick-and-mortar institutions for a variety of reasons have access to quality education.
Coursera also builds some of the 21st century skills that I believe are missing from the Khan Academy. As Daphne Koller mentions in her TED talk, students can organize in-person or digital study groups. Collaboration is encouraged.
I believe, like many, that when people put their heads together the ideas grow exponentially to the information at hand. We now know that the model of the "lone genius" is a myth. Many famous ideas from history were crafted from conversations in coffee houses or bars even though we still tend to only credit one person. Therefore, if MOOCs are going to be truly progressive, I believe that they need to be built with interactions in mind.
Koller notes that one thing Coursera, and many MOOCs, struggle with is higher-order learning. I agree. So much of my ELA teaching isn't about content but higher-order thinking. My assessments are designed around analysis, evaluation, and creating something new. I'm sure this is true in many fields.
So, for me, I want MOOCs to develop better ways to assess this higher-level or deep learning (the spatial geometry of education metaphors puzzles me -- is learning a fractal? Perhaps). The data that Koller and Ng are collecting from Coursera is incredibly useful, but I want to collect the hard-to-reach data that's qualitative, creative, and shows higher-order learning. I look forward to seeing how the research will evolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment