The value of critique... pls contribute your views
We've had two very strong critiques of the edfutures course this week that you may find interesting. They may be in line with what you are feeling... feel free to jump in and help improve the model. Here are some of the main points
1. The course is not directive enough
2. Not enough facilitation of students by instructors
3. "One thing in particular that I find hugely problematic about this course is the primitive nature of the environment in which we're working." (would be nice to know more about this)
4. Unmanaged expectations
http://edfutures.com/newsletter/thursday-5-2010/may-13-live-next-week-up...
http://edfutures.com/blogs/amcauley/half-empty-half-full-half-there
And here is George's encouragement of critique from today http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/05/16/the-value-of-critique/
It's a new model, it thrives on critique. We know of no body of work from which we can learn how to deal with the kind of reverse filtering (that is, no monetary barrier for entry, so people filter themselves out after registering) that happens in a course where everyone is invited and they weed themselves out as the course goes along. Because of this the course is meant to be participatory to the point where participants change the model as required... Gonna have to work on a better way to explain that. My only request is that you make specific critiques... the more specific the easier for us to learn from you.
That being said... I agree with George, there is a sting to this kind of critique. And maybe it's in the gulf it points to between people's perceptions of their role as partipants and ours as facilitators, particularly in terms of control. The 'primitive' comment about the website makes me wonder if I should have focused further on making clear to people how much control they could have had, and still could have over the course (and the site, which is stripped back to reduce the need for training). The site is highly decentralized. So is the path that individuals take through it. In part, this is a result of the fact that a 2 to 700 ratio for a free course offered by volunteer facilitators as an experiment REQUIRES that participants own what they want in the course and find ways to make it happen. Perhaps in future, we need to put more emphasis on organizing THAT (as per George's original blog post on open courses) right from the beginning so everyone's clearer about what they can bring to the process, but also about the kind of control they MUST have for the course to work.
7 comments so far:
Lisa M Lane says: Comments and connections
A few ideas which might tie together some perspectives.
The idea of students as co-creators:
The opportunity to create and share their own content may not be seen as helping create the course itself. For this to truly occur, students would need to be involved before the start date of the course, not only selecting and creating materials, but assisting in determining format, location, schedule and navigation.
The idea of a course:
The word "course" does, as others have noted, lead to certain expectations. I keep trying to think of a word for what this might be, other than something like a "happening" or an "experience". "Course" implies instructor control and set outcomes.
The pedagogy:
Although all may participate, the synchronous sessions, where the most immediate form of interaction takes place, are controlled by the instructors. While the chat room and commentary are controlled by the students, that is still an outsider position from which to respond rather than initiate. That does not mean I'm recommending a free-for-all synchronous experience with hundreds of people. It might be possible, as I said in my first point, to involve interested/experienced parties ahead of time and have them present their ideas in the sychronous sessions. Student expertise would then be integrated within the course rather than used in response to instructor-planned curriculum.
The technology:
Because participants can use whatever technology they want, they can explore advanced and emerging technologies to create content to share. The course interaction areas, however, are, as has been noted, in standard web format. There might be an expection for something more dynamic, and I suspect that's related to the interactive/discussion elements of the class rather than the formats of materials. Not all would have enough experience or comfort to create alternative experiences on the web and point course participants there. I suspect that Dave and George would be delighted with the spontenaous creation of dynamic and trendy online meeting places and forums linked to the course -- these would then automatically become part of the course and be enriching places to play and learn.
Overall, the class has a balance of instructor and student control that some students are bound to find uncomfortable at either side of the spectrum. Those who want less instructor control will criticize the format of the class and what seem to be standard instructor-determined norms for participation. Those who want more instructor control will criticize the lack of "set" materials and formal lecturing, the absence of standard "rewards" for participation and content creation, and the technology being used to centralize the class.
silviagarcia341 says: I am not sure I agree with
I am not sure I agree with you Lisa when you say that co-creation implies that students should have participated in the planning of the course from the beginning. Co-creation is something that happens everyday in every possible way. We co-create concepts and co-create words by using, sharing and giving each word a specific meaning and accepting that meaning as valid in our social group.
I think this course is co-created because even if there is an explicit purpose (and maybe an implicit one), a given content and a schedule, most of the substantive content of the course is given by us. The instructors give us something to talk about, general topics, but we have the “control” of what we post or create in our own spaces. For example, Laura talked about Black Swans in Latin America (it was never on the syllabus) another participant initiated a discussion about "information overabundance" and so on.
We are permanently reading new material on books or on the Internet and bringing it to the course. We know that at the end we will end with a product with certain formal characteristics given by the instructors, but we don´t know how it will really be, because we still lack some information about the context. That is why discussions are so important, because they should bring together pieces of important information we need to create a proper scenario.
For me, the most important part of this course is not about learning techniques for generating future scenarios for education, but about the course being itself a technique (or space) for scenarios generation. I am in the process of trying to create my final artifact (the future of education for a country in LA, as related to technology development). Though I knew about planning scenarios and usually read a lot about technology trends in developed countries, this course has become the platform to put it all together and validate my perspectives.
New:
Since facilitators do not control learning but facilitate the conditions for learning, maybe what is missing in the course is more "presence", giving from time to time, a little bit of directionality to the discussions and making us focus on what they think is important to achieve a good product. However, I do not know if that would contradict the very nature of the course.
Dolors says: .
Absolutely agree. Lisa.
The problem, however, is how to retain the motivation of the vast majority of those registered.
Regardless of the degree of control of the facilitators and the degree of independence they want those registered, there must be a middle ground that balances the tension between the two needs. And I think the solution is not on stage but in persons, and the communicative competence of both parties is essencial for this.
The subjects addressed in this course are new to a majority. And it is not sufficient to recommend a reading and listening to a lecture so that they feel they are qualified to opine on the issue correctly.
For this reason and for no other, I believe that a large majority decides does not participate.
Dolors says: .
"(...) My only request is that you make specific critiques... the more specific the easier for us to learn from you. (...)"
Dave, wiht a absolutely constructive spirit, let me ask you two questions.
1.- You do not believe that, in response to poor results and without contributing anything different, with his attitude always on demand of participation, specific answers, ..., and believing being right, you are perceived more as a traditional teacher than a facilitator in an open system?
2.- If you've made some self-critical, can you explain it for everyone to learn us from you?
Best regards,
amcauley says: Added my bit
I've added my two bits about the primitive environment in response to a specific request elsewhere:
http://edfutures.com/blogs/amcauley/half-empty-half-full-half-there#comm...
By way of what I mean, though, to add that link I had to open another window in my browser, navigate to my blog, control-click to get the link, then move back here and paste it in the note. Primitive, to say the least.
In doing that, I did find out how to edit a prior post, though, so some things are less primitive than I may have thought ;-)
dave.cormier says: Sandy... that's the way just
Sandy... that's the way just about every website in the world works. it's standard, not primitive.
silviagarcia341 says: I agree with many of the
I agree with many of the things you say here Dave.
In a previous post: http://edfutures.com/blogs/gsiemens/what-open-decentralized-course#comme... I commented about being clrear on what we want and go for it. On the other hand, I valued the fact that both of you let us be co-creators of the course. This is a learning experience for all of us, including the facilitators. Our challenge is to pick the important things out of this course and use them wisely.
What I would criticize (if this is the right word) is not the dynamic of the course, I love it and learn from this course everyday. What is probably confusing I guess, is that there was not a check of expectations before the course started, not for changing the course, but for making clear to people what was it all about.
Usually online courses tend to be very structured so that participants don´t get lost in the middle. This course is almost the opposite. But I wouldn´t worry about that because I strongly feel this is a trend in all online courses. I have been working with online courses for many years and what I feel now is that not even the most flexible of the virtual learning environments is enough to capture the tremendous changes we are experiencing as learners and (hopefully) as teachers. Probably for some time, people will see this course more as an open discussion than as a course. But I think you are both opening a new path for us to follow, make it better and reinvent online courses in the near future.
My only suggestion is this. The fact that old discussions from last weeks sometimes appear as recent post, as if the issue is relevant to what is being discussed at the moment may be sometimes confusing. This is kind of disruptive.
Even if all that is discussed during the course is connected, and even if some issues previously discussed need to be thought again, what I would suggest is to get a special place for old discussions (or a special visible place for the discussion of the week) so that people moves on to a new issue, thinking on what they said in the past, but not discussing the same again.
As I said in my other post, this is a new way of thinking education on line. We all in this course have talked about a new kind of student and how to address them. This “universal” independent and interdependent student, as someone called him in this forum needs a universal teacher. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t experience it?