Je ne pouvais passer à Mexico en ce début d'année sans rendre visite à Veronica Hoyos à l'Université Pédagogique Nationale (UPN). Notre premier contact remonte au début des années 90, à l'occasion de son long séjour post-doc à Grenoble. Didacticienne des mathématiques, Veronica était intéressée par les EIAH, tout particulièrement Cabri-géomètre. Son intérêt s'est maintenu et a évolué au fil de l'actualité, aussi m'a-t-elle demandé de donner un point de vue sur l'enseignement à distance (en mathématiques et dans le contexte de la formation des maîtres) à l'ère des MOOC ; ce que j'ai fait en accentuant cette fois les aspects liés à la représentation des connaissances et à l'interaction entre les élèves et les enseignants par l'entremise des dispositifs informatiques. Un long séminaire, beaucoup de questions, un beau moment de rencontre dont nous publierons ensemble (en espagnol) les principaux éléments dans les mois qui viennent.
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est MOOC. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est MOOC. Afficher tous les articles
vendredi 9 janvier 2015
Visite à l'UPN, Mexico
Je ne pouvais passer à Mexico en ce début d'année sans rendre visite à Veronica Hoyos à l'Université Pédagogique Nationale (UPN). Notre premier contact remonte au début des années 90, à l'occasion de son long séjour post-doc à Grenoble. Didacticienne des mathématiques, Veronica était intéressée par les EIAH, tout particulièrement Cabri-géomètre. Son intérêt s'est maintenu et a évolué au fil de l'actualité, aussi m'a-t-elle demandé de donner un point de vue sur l'enseignement à distance (en mathématiques et dans le contexte de la formation des maîtres) à l'ère des MOOC ; ce que j'ai fait en accentuant cette fois les aspects liés à la représentation des connaissances et à l'interaction entre les élèves et les enseignants par l'entremise des dispositifs informatiques. Un long séminaire, beaucoup de questions, un beau moment de rencontre dont nous publierons ensemble (en espagnol) les principaux éléments dans les mois qui viennent.
lundi 29 septembre 2014
Les moocs ou le surgissement de l'économie (libérale)
Le boom des MOOC en 2012 est d'abord un phénomène économique et médiatique, bien qu'il soit souvent identifié comme une révolution pédagogique et un défi lancé aux universités dans les débats et polémiques qui fleurissent à son sujet depuis lors. Invité à donner un point de vue sur l'évolution de l'enseignement à distance lors du "Forum international d’éducation ouverte et en ligne" des entretiens Jacques Cartier (2-3 octobre 2014 à Ottawa), je ne pouvais ignorer les MOOCs, aussi en ai-je fait le point focal de ma présentation. J'en suis venu à la conclusion que d'une part l'enseignement à distance a évolué silencieusement vers ce que j'appellerais les espaces d'apprentissage. Cette évolution a été suscitée par celle des outils, de la distribution et l'interconnexion des ressources, ainsi que le développement des réseaux sociaux. Dans ce contexte, les moocs ne se distinguent que par deux caractéristiques : une durée et une fin liées à la disponibilité des enseignants, et l'échelle potentielle du déploiement. Ils occupent, en complément ou synergie avec d'autres solutions, une place particulière qui les met en concurrence avec le cours oral. Ils ont un fort potentiel pour imposer dans ce créneau un standard : séquences vidéo courtes couvrant un sujet, stimulation de l'écoute attentive (QCM) et support des réseaux sociaux pour l'étude. D'autres standards émergeront de l'industrialisation de l'offre, le besoin d'interfaces et de procédures stables, ainsi que des exigences de jugement des certifications que l'on voudra comparer ou valider.
Les certifications... finalement, au terme de ma réflexion pour préparer cet exposé, le plus frappant aura été de comprendre que la source à la fois des espoirs et des inquiétudes est que les moocs font du diplôme, du certificat ou du "badge" des produits sur le marché de l'éducation et de la formation. Dans ce contexte, l'enseignement serait un moyen dont la valeur est celle de la qualification à laquelle il donne accès. L'économie pourrait alors imposer un standard comme cela est le cas pour d'autres produits...
Les certifications... finalement, au terme de ma réflexion pour préparer cet exposé, le plus frappant aura été de comprendre que la source à la fois des espoirs et des inquiétudes est que les moocs font du diplôme, du certificat ou du "badge" des produits sur le marché de l'éducation et de la formation. Dans ce contexte, l'enseignement serait un moyen dont la valeur est celle de la qualification à laquelle il donne accès. L'économie pourrait alors imposer un standard comme cela est le cas pour d'autres produits...
Entretiens Jacques Cartier
Forum international d’éducation ouverte et en ligne
Jeudi 2 et vendredi 3 octobre 2014, Ottawa
Forum international d’éducation ouverte et en ligne
Jeudi 2 et vendredi 3 octobre 2014, Ottawa
mercredi 10 septembre 2014
À l’ère des MOOC, les universités ont encore un bel avenir
Billet rédigé dans le cadre de la préparation de ma contribution au forum international sur l’éducation ouverte et en ligne organisé dans le cadre des Entretiens Jacques Cartier début octobre.
Ne pas s’engager dans la voie des moocs pourrait-il être fatal aux universités ? La question revient régulièrement dans la presse et les débats sur ces nouveaux venus dans la pédagogie universitaire. On peut comprendre que, dans un premier temps, la réponse ait pu être positive. La principale raison tient moins à la conviction que les moocs deviendraient le modèle et l’outil de l’enseignement universitaire, qu’à l’émotion suscitée par l’écho dans les médias des premiers succès d’audience, de la mobilisation de capitaux-risqueurs en général peu actifs dans le domaine de l’éducation, et de l’engagement d’universités prestigieuses. Un peu de recul, même celui tout relatif de deux années, suggère une réponse nettement moins tranchée en affirmant d’une part que les moocs ne seront pas le standard de l’enseignement universitaire mais que d’autre part ne pas les prendre en compte comme un outil possible serait fautif et, dans certains cas, pénalisant.
La mission des universités, quelle que soit la structure du système national dans lequel elles opèrent et les modèles économiques associés, est de contribuer à la création de la connaissance et de dispenser un enseignement en relation forte avec cette activité de recherche. Le fond de cette relation ne réside pas dans le texte du savoir que le professeur apporte, un livre ou le film d’un exposé peuvent s’en charger, mais dans la possibilité d’accéder à la compréhension qu’il en a. Cette compréhension est forgée dans une relation intime avec les savoirs, qui évolue dans le temps au fil de sa pratique de la recherche et de l’enseignement. C’est ce champ de la signification que laboure l’enseignant universitaire avec ses étudiants avec pour responsabilité de maitriser savoirs et savoir-faire et d’apporter les moyens de l’apprentissage.
La place que je donne ici à la légitimité du professeur, qu’il instruise ou facilite l’apprentissage, serait peut être contestée par les inventeurs du connectivisme qui déclarent comme premier principe de cette théorie :
L’université est le lieu où l’on apprend, mais aussi l’institution qui atteste de la qualité et de la validité de cet apprentissage. Diplômes et certificats sont indissociables de la mission universitaire (ce qui n’exclut en aucune manière ce que l’on appelait naguère les « auditeurs libres »). L’évaluation est ainsi une problématique aussi importante que celle de l’apprentissage dans la mission des universités ; évaluation des étudiants, mais aussi celle des moyens et celle des enseignants en charge de leur mise en œuvre. Sur ce terrain les moocs apportent peu de solutions et encore moins d’innovation. Les moocs connectivistes évitent finalement le problème en l’ignorant ou le minimisant, les autres moocs se retournent vers des institutions habilitées dont les universités dans les domaines qui leurs reviennent.
En conclusion, les moocs ne menacent pas les universités sur le terrain qui est le leur parce ce sont elles qui leur apportent légitimité et fiabilité comme instruments d’apprentissage. Le maintien de la proximité humaine entre enseignants et étudiants, avec pour les premiers une légitimité attestée, signifie dans des dispositifs « massifs » un grand nombre de personnels dont les compétences nécessaires sont celles que l’on trouve aujourd’hui dans les universités. L’utilisation des termes « facilitateurs » ou « tuteurs » tendent à le masquer par un effet rhétorique qui doit être dénoncé. Cela ne signifie pas qu’il faille se désintéresser des moocs, de leurs implications économiques ou pédagogiques. Je reviendrai sur ces dernières. Mais il faut les considérer comme des instruments qui augmentent ou complètent la panoplie des technologies actuellement disponibles. Bref, les universités ont encore de beaux jours devant elles, même si elles doivent évoluer au plan structurel et pédagogique, mais cela est la caractéristique de tous les organismes vivants.
Ne pas s’engager dans la voie des moocs pourrait-il être fatal aux universités ? La question revient régulièrement dans la presse et les débats sur ces nouveaux venus dans la pédagogie universitaire. On peut comprendre que, dans un premier temps, la réponse ait pu être positive. La principale raison tient moins à la conviction que les moocs deviendraient le modèle et l’outil de l’enseignement universitaire, qu’à l’émotion suscitée par l’écho dans les médias des premiers succès d’audience, de la mobilisation de capitaux-risqueurs en général peu actifs dans le domaine de l’éducation, et de l’engagement d’universités prestigieuses. Un peu de recul, même celui tout relatif de deux années, suggère une réponse nettement moins tranchée en affirmant d’une part que les moocs ne seront pas le standard de l’enseignement universitaire mais que d’autre part ne pas les prendre en compte comme un outil possible serait fautif et, dans certains cas, pénalisant.
La mission des universités, quelle que soit la structure du système national dans lequel elles opèrent et les modèles économiques associés, est de contribuer à la création de la connaissance et de dispenser un enseignement en relation forte avec cette activité de recherche. Le fond de cette relation ne réside pas dans le texte du savoir que le professeur apporte, un livre ou le film d’un exposé peuvent s’en charger, mais dans la possibilité d’accéder à la compréhension qu’il en a. Cette compréhension est forgée dans une relation intime avec les savoirs, qui évolue dans le temps au fil de sa pratique de la recherche et de l’enseignement. C’est ce champ de la signification que laboure l’enseignant universitaire avec ses étudiants avec pour responsabilité de maitriser savoirs et savoir-faire et d’apporter les moyens de l’apprentissage.
Office HoursL’évolution des universités, ou plus précisément de l’enseignement supérieur, au cours du XX° siècle, est marquée par la “massification” de son public étudiant et la responsabilité d’apporter des compétences professionnelles attendues par le monde industriel et économique. Ainsi, la distance entre l’enseignant et le professeur a-t-elle pu s’accroitre, comme celle entre enseignement et recherche, et le modèle du cours se rigidifier jusqu’à prêter le flanc à la caricature que les plus savants qualifient de béhavioriste. C’est dans ce contexte que les moocs de la première génération, ceux du connectivisme, s’affirment comme les instruments d’un retour aux raisons d’être initiales de l’université :
Times when I am available to see students for personal tutorials and topical tutorials. Please re-check this page a day or two before you intend to come as changes to dates & times may be inevitable. My office is HWB 0/52 on the ground floor of the Henry Wellcome Building down the corridor to the right of the deli-bar counter.
“MOOCs, on the other hand, share the processes of knowledge work, not just the products. Facilitators model and display sensemaking and wayfinding in their disciplines. They respond to critics and challenges from participants in the course. Instead of sharing only their knowledge as is done in a typical university course, they share their sensemaking habits and their thinking processes with participants.” (McAuley et al. 2010)Il s'agirait donc de relever un vieux défi, celui de créer les conditions qui, au-delà de la « communication » des savoirs, permettent la « construction » du sens -- en d’autres termes, enseigner sans instruire. L’utilisation du mot « facilitateur » préféré à « professeur » est la marque d’une posture idéologique antiautoritaire, mais au fond c’est bien la figure de l’enseignant universitaire qui est présente. Il est la référence avec tout ce que cela implique de compétence et de responsabilité. Cette légitimité ne peut-être auto-déclarée, elle trouve son origine dans la communauté scientifique et l’institution universitaire, ainsi que dans une pratique exigeante de la recherche. Les moocs n’ont rien en eux-mêmes qui contribue à fonder cette légitimité, ils sont des instruments dont l’efficacité et la qualité sont clairement dépendants de celles des opérateurs humains (professeurs, tuteurs, guides ou facilitateurs).
La place que je donne ici à la légitimité du professeur, qu’il instruise ou facilite l’apprentissage, serait peut être contestée par les inventeurs du connectivisme qui déclarent comme premier principe de cette théorie :
“Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.” (Siemens 2004, retrieved 140910)Distinguer « savoirs » et « opinions » est une affaire sérieuse qui ne souffre pas le compromis. Les savoirs scientifiques et techniques sont réglés par des principes de validité – je n’ai pas écrit « vérité » -- qui peuvent être discutés mais dont il est exigé qu’ils soient explicites et publiques, ouverts aux débats contradictoires. Il revient aux communautés responsables des différentes disciplines d’attester des consensus et divergences, et aux institutions universitaires de donner un cadre en quelque sorte juridique et administratif qui acte les arbitrages. Cela n’exclut pas les opinions mais leur donne une place précise dans le débat et la construction des savoirs.
L’université est le lieu où l’on apprend, mais aussi l’institution qui atteste de la qualité et de la validité de cet apprentissage. Diplômes et certificats sont indissociables de la mission universitaire (ce qui n’exclut en aucune manière ce que l’on appelait naguère les « auditeurs libres »). L’évaluation est ainsi une problématique aussi importante que celle de l’apprentissage dans la mission des universités ; évaluation des étudiants, mais aussi celle des moyens et celle des enseignants en charge de leur mise en œuvre. Sur ce terrain les moocs apportent peu de solutions et encore moins d’innovation. Les moocs connectivistes évitent finalement le problème en l’ignorant ou le minimisant, les autres moocs se retournent vers des institutions habilitées dont les universités dans les domaines qui leurs reviennent.
En conclusion, les moocs ne menacent pas les universités sur le terrain qui est le leur parce ce sont elles qui leur apportent légitimité et fiabilité comme instruments d’apprentissage. Le maintien de la proximité humaine entre enseignants et étudiants, avec pour les premiers une légitimité attestée, signifie dans des dispositifs « massifs » un grand nombre de personnels dont les compétences nécessaires sont celles que l’on trouve aujourd’hui dans les universités. L’utilisation des termes « facilitateurs » ou « tuteurs » tendent à le masquer par un effet rhétorique qui doit être dénoncé. Cela ne signifie pas qu’il faille se désintéresser des moocs, de leurs implications économiques ou pédagogiques. Je reviendrai sur ces dernières. Mais il faut les considérer comme des instruments qui augmentent ou complètent la panoplie des technologies actuellement disponibles. Bref, les universités ont encore de beaux jours devant elles, même si elles doivent évoluer au plan structurel et pédagogique, mais cela est la caractéristique de tous les organismes vivants.
[à suivre]
mercredi 3 septembre 2014
Du MOOC au mooc, la banalisation d'un sigle
Billet rédigé dans le cadre de la préparation de ma contribution au forum international sur l’éducation ouverte et en ligne organisé dans le cadre des Entretiens Jacques Cartier début octobre.
Le Monde, Télérama et bien d’autres journaux encore donnent une bonne place aux MOOCs pour inaugurer cette rentrée scolaire et universitaire. Les MOOCs… dernière révolution technologique promise dans le monde de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage. Enfin… révolution crainte et promise au moment de leur apparition dans le ciel médiatique en 2012, mais probablement à considérer avec plus de nuances après deux années de mobilisation politique et polémique. C’est du moins ce que l’on pourra retenir après la lecture de l'ouvrage « Les MOOC conception, usages et modèles économiques » signé par Jean-Charles Pomerol, Yves Epelboin et Claire Thoury chez Dunod.
Qu’est-ce qu’un MOOC ? Les auteurs apportent une réponse claire et documentée malgré toute la difficulté que l’on peut avoir à prendre le recul nécessaire pour comprendre un phénomène au cœur de l'Actualité éducative mais pas encore passé dans l'Histoire.
Le sigle MOOC (pour Massive Open Online Course) a été forgé à la hâte en 2008 alors que Georges Siemens ouvrait un « cours » en ligne connectiviste sur le connectivisme… Le choix rend compte de l’étonnement devant le succès d’audience de ce cours plus que de son originalité qui est de mettre en œuvre les principes de la théorie en question, notamment : « Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions », « Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources ». Il n'y avait donc pas d'obstacle à la reprise de ce même sigle pour désigner un type d’enseignement en ligne totalement différent, un cours d’introduction à l’intelligence artificielle de Sebastian Thrun, dont le succès d’audience est tel que son auteur quitte Stanford pour créer Udacity. Cette fois ce n’est pas la technologie ou la pédagogie qui est le moteur de « l’innovation » mais la perspective économique. D’ailleurs, s’agit-il d’innovation ?
L’analyse de Pomerol et de ses collègues suggère que les MOOC sont dans la continuité du eLearning sous l’impulsion du développement des réseaux sociaux et de celui des ressources pédagogiques en libre accès (OER). Cette évolution a aujourd’hui deux branches principales : celle d’une (possible) mutation épistémologique dont l’idée est défendue par Georges Siemens, ou cMOOC, et celle de la mutation du cours magistral en un produit sur le marché de l’enseignement et de la formation, ou xMOOC. En fait, pour ces derniers, il n’y a pas de format figé et imposé a priori même si on peut relever que dominent dans les premières offres les enregistrements de cours magistraux découpés en tranches assez fines alternées avec des évaluations le plus souvent sous forme de QCM ; sorte de thian pédagogique que pourraient assez bien accompagner des learning nuggets. Il est probable que la distinction savante entre cMOOC et xMOOC ne tiendra pas dans la durée. Déjà, notent les auteurs, apparaissent les propositions de iMOOC (orienté investigation), pMOOC (orienté projet) ou tMOOC (orienté tâche).
Après cette lecture, je pense que le mot mooc survivra dans le vocabulaire commun pour désigner une nouvelle génération de produits pour l’apprentissage en ligne associant pleinement les réseaux sociaux dans un environnement technologique tolérant un très grand nombre d’utilisateurs. C’est un peu moins que la définition minimale de Christian Queinnec, que retiennent les auteurs, qui inclut l’accompagnement de la formation par une évaluation, mais un peu plus que cela en requérant la capacité d’assurer un usage « massif » (il faut bien garder quelque chose du sigle initial).
Mais si un mooc n’est que cela, pourquoi tant d’émotion en 2012 lorsqu’ils sont remarqués par la presse internationale. Les raisons ne me paraissent pas tenir à l’importance de l’innovation pédagogique, mais à la crainte des institutions de formation qui n’auraient pas su prendre le virage d'être marginalisées. En particulier, la « lenteur » des universités à s’engager dans ce mouvement pourrait-elle leur être fatale ?
Qu’est-ce qu’un MOOC ? Les auteurs apportent une réponse claire et documentée malgré toute la difficulté que l’on peut avoir à prendre le recul nécessaire pour comprendre un phénomène au cœur de l'Actualité éducative mais pas encore passé dans l'Histoire.
Le sigle MOOC (pour Massive Open Online Course) a été forgé à la hâte en 2008 alors que Georges Siemens ouvrait un « cours » en ligne connectiviste sur le connectivisme… Le choix rend compte de l’étonnement devant le succès d’audience de ce cours plus que de son originalité qui est de mettre en œuvre les principes de la théorie en question, notamment : « Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions », « Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources ». Il n'y avait donc pas d'obstacle à la reprise de ce même sigle pour désigner un type d’enseignement en ligne totalement différent, un cours d’introduction à l’intelligence artificielle de Sebastian Thrun, dont le succès d’audience est tel que son auteur quitte Stanford pour créer Udacity. Cette fois ce n’est pas la technologie ou la pédagogie qui est le moteur de « l’innovation » mais la perspective économique. D’ailleurs, s’agit-il d’innovation ?
L’analyse de Pomerol et de ses collègues suggère que les MOOC sont dans la continuité du eLearning sous l’impulsion du développement des réseaux sociaux et de celui des ressources pédagogiques en libre accès (OER). Cette évolution a aujourd’hui deux branches principales : celle d’une (possible) mutation épistémologique dont l’idée est défendue par Georges Siemens, ou cMOOC, et celle de la mutation du cours magistral en un produit sur le marché de l’enseignement et de la formation, ou xMOOC. En fait, pour ces derniers, il n’y a pas de format figé et imposé a priori même si on peut relever que dominent dans les premières offres les enregistrements de cours magistraux découpés en tranches assez fines alternées avec des évaluations le plus souvent sous forme de QCM ; sorte de thian pédagogique que pourraient assez bien accompagner des learning nuggets. Il est probable que la distinction savante entre cMOOC et xMOOC ne tiendra pas dans la durée. Déjà, notent les auteurs, apparaissent les propositions de iMOOC (orienté investigation), pMOOC (orienté projet) ou tMOOC (orienté tâche).
Après cette lecture, je pense que le mot mooc survivra dans le vocabulaire commun pour désigner une nouvelle génération de produits pour l’apprentissage en ligne associant pleinement les réseaux sociaux dans un environnement technologique tolérant un très grand nombre d’utilisateurs. C’est un peu moins que la définition minimale de Christian Queinnec, que retiennent les auteurs, qui inclut l’accompagnement de la formation par une évaluation, mais un peu plus que cela en requérant la capacité d’assurer un usage « massif » (il faut bien garder quelque chose du sigle initial).
Mais si un mooc n’est que cela, pourquoi tant d’émotion en 2012 lorsqu’ils sont remarqués par la presse internationale. Les raisons ne me paraissent pas tenir à l’importance de l’innovation pédagogique, mais à la crainte des institutions de formation qui n’auraient pas su prendre le virage d'être marginalisées. En particulier, la « lenteur » des universités à s’engager dans ce mouvement pourrait-elle leur être fatale ?
[A suivre]
Mooc [muːk] n. m. dispositif d’apprentissage en ligne associant pleinement les réseaux sociaux dans un environnement technologique tolérant un très grand nombre d’utilisateurs -- Étymol. et Hist. 2008 Empr. à l'anglo-amér. MOOC (Dave Educational Blog, 2 octobre 2008) formé des lettres init. de Massive, Open, Online et Course dans l'expr. Massive Open Online Course.)
mercredi 8 mai 2013
#ocTEL MOOC (week 3 Webinar) Did the 3E framework inspire the design of the ocTEL MOOC? I wonder...
This week 3 webinar on "Activity design for online learning" was presented by Keith Smyth based on the 3E framework that he used in support to the improvement of the adoption of TEL at Edinburgh Napier University. Surprisingly the link with the three activities proposed by #ocTEL for this week 3 is not obvious and may be empty but at a very general level -- that is the level of the word "activity". It is not to mean that the webinar was not interesting, but one may expect more coherence between the activities in a MOOC.
The 3E framework is "based on a tried and tested Enhance-Extend-Empower continuum for using technology to effectively support learning, teaching and assessment across disciplines and levels of study", explain the authors. Here is a view of the continuum:
In a way, I see that as a meta-model to frame the type of use of the technology one may want to adopt. This continuum seems especially relevant for adult education with the last stage coming closer to professional situations. Then within each of these levels we are left with nothing very tangible and operational to develop the design. We were left with 3 to 4 minutes to fill in the table with one example... a real challenge.
There is a lesson to be learned anyway, which is that whatever is the design a the level of actual student activity, there must be also attention paid to the higher level of design which is that of the course management as a series of activities and their evolution. In this respect the webinar was interesting and relevant. But, thinking about and learning "learning theories" was probably not the most relevant to prepare to it, something closer to curriculum development and/or course management would have been welcome.
Eventually... did the 3E framework inspire the design of #ocTEL? I wonder...
The 3E framework is "based on a tried and tested Enhance-Extend-Empower continuum for using technology to effectively support learning, teaching and assessment across disciplines and levels of study", explain the authors. Here is a view of the continuum:
Enhance
|
Extend
|
Empower
|
Adopting technology in simple and effective ways to actively support students and increase their activity and self-responsibility
|
Further use of technology that facilitates key aspects of students’ individual and collaborative learning and assessment through increasing their choice and control
|
Developed use of technology that promotes learner autonomy and requires higher order individual and collaborative learning that reflect how knowledge is created and used in professional environments
|
In a way, I see that as a meta-model to frame the type of use of the technology one may want to adopt. This continuum seems especially relevant for adult education with the last stage coming closer to professional situations. Then within each of these levels we are left with nothing very tangible and operational to develop the design. We were left with 3 to 4 minutes to fill in the table with one example... a real challenge.
There is a lesson to be learned anyway, which is that whatever is the design a the level of actual student activity, there must be also attention paid to the higher level of design which is that of the course management as a series of activities and their evolution. In this respect the webinar was interesting and relevant. But, thinking about and learning "learning theories" was probably not the most relevant to prepare to it, something closer to curriculum development and/or course management would have been welcome.
Eventually... did the 3E framework inspire the design of #ocTEL? I wonder...
vendredi 3 mai 2013
#ocTEL MOOC (week 2 Webinar) Eventually, it's wise to distinguish the driver from the traveller!
This week, for the first time since the beginning of this course, I can attend the webinar. The connexion is easy and the environment is rather well designed. We have a sense of the audience (about 50 people), the moderators are active, the chat is lively and the presentation (slides and comments) is clearly displayed. May be, for a foreign learner, not perfect in English, the discourse is too fast and difficult sometimes to catch; however with the support of the slides and thanks to a well structured talk, it is possible to follow anyway.
The topic of the webinar, presented by Helen Beetham, is to explore and consider possible responses to the question "What do we need to know about learners?".
I usually understand this question from an epistemic and cognitive perspective, but this time the angle is more focused on the learner as a user of the MOOC. This makes me realize the difference between a the user of a course and a learner. If one consider a course as a commodity, then there are a few question to ask about the user which are of a different nature than if you consider it as an instrument for learning purposes. I mean that there are two different questions: (1) what we need to know about the learner as a course user? (2) what do we need to know about the learner as a knowing subject? The commodification, if I may dare this neologism, of courses by the technology makes relevant questioning who is the learner as a user (eventually as a client as he or she may pay for the service).
Let's try a metaphor: a car is both a commodity and a means for go from one place to an other, however before travelling one must be able to drive. Hence, if you conceive a car you must know something about the driver, the question of who he or she is as a traveller is an other story... Back to learning: such a question is not that critical in a classroom because of the possibility to adapt in real time to the difficulties which may appear. In a distance learning course of a reasonable size, there is the possibility to intervene if needed and respond to needs with not a too long delay; actually there is a physical distance but the social distance is not too important. In a MOOC, the social distance may be rather critical since it is very easy to remain unnoticeable and isolated from the others. So, being autonomous, proactive and digital-something is required, and one may understand that the institutions try to ensure that this is fine before students engage in a MOOC. To some extent, ensuring that the driver has a licence is a wise idea.
Eventually, I think we have to consider seriously Roger Emery remark: "Issues I face: Concentration, Focus, Application, Dedication. In a traditional 'classroom' I am locked in a room for an hour with a facilitator and community of learners with no distractions to concentrate on the learning and subject. I've never been able to replicate that experience online" (@SolentRoger).
The topic of the webinar, presented by Helen Beetham, is to explore and consider possible responses to the question "What do we need to know about learners?".
I usually understand this question from an epistemic and cognitive perspective, but this time the angle is more focused on the learner as a user of the MOOC. This makes me realize the difference between a the user of a course and a learner. If one consider a course as a commodity, then there are a few question to ask about the user which are of a different nature than if you consider it as an instrument for learning purposes. I mean that there are two different questions: (1) what we need to know about the learner as a course user? (2) what do we need to know about the learner as a knowing subject? The commodification, if I may dare this neologism, of courses by the technology makes relevant questioning who is the learner as a user (eventually as a client as he or she may pay for the service).
Let's try a metaphor: a car is both a commodity and a means for go from one place to an other, however before travelling one must be able to drive. Hence, if you conceive a car you must know something about the driver, the question of who he or she is as a traveller is an other story... Back to learning: such a question is not that critical in a classroom because of the possibility to adapt in real time to the difficulties which may appear. In a distance learning course of a reasonable size, there is the possibility to intervene if needed and respond to needs with not a too long delay; actually there is a physical distance but the social distance is not too important. In a MOOC, the social distance may be rather critical since it is very easy to remain unnoticeable and isolated from the others. So, being autonomous, proactive and digital-something is required, and one may understand that the institutions try to ensure that this is fine before students engage in a MOOC. To some extent, ensuring that the driver has a licence is a wise idea.
Eventually, I think we have to consider seriously Roger Emery remark: "Issues I face: Concentration, Focus, Application, Dedication. In a traditional 'classroom' I am locked in a room for an hour with a facilitator and community of learners with no distractions to concentrate on the learning and subject. I've never been able to replicate that experience online" (@SolentRoger).
mercredi 1 mai 2013
#ocTEL MOOC (week 2 A21) Prerequisites for attending a MOOC
The topic of the week is "Understanding learners needs", which in my opinion is better expressed by understanding the prerequisites for enrolling potentially successfully in a (Massive Open) On-line Course. Four questionnaires are suggested to get a first idea of what that could mean. Here they are:
Let say, that alternatively a short document should advice the potential user of the kind of access to technology and of the basic skills they need in order to engage. Going ahead is than a question of responsibility on their side. If they think that they have a not a sufficient access to technology or not enough skills, then open to them the possibility to express it and ask for support. For the rest, the technology must be able to figure out what are the difficulty of the learner. To take an example, procrastination can be identified from the log and a support could be kindly and politely offered. By the way, I am late in achieving the tasks in ocTEL although I don't look at myself as a procrastinator... it just happens that this #ocTEL MOOC cannot be at the highest level of priority of my to-do list; but the technology should recognize that I keep going and maintain effort to keep in the main stream.
Although I know something on TEL and I have used several educational software, I have no experience of online learning. #ocTEL is my first experience, so I can take it and myself as a case to explore expectations and concerns. The main point is that I expected a course and I feel more engaged in a kind of speedy brainstorming on learning and technology. The technology works well and is friendly to the skills of a normal digital immigrant (not a native). The quantity of events and contribution is hugged, it is not obvious to connect and take benefit from participating in this emergent community of practice. But, I don't surrender, so see you in the next Blog post which will be on Activity 2.2 and about the webinar (which I attended on week 2).
Penn State University: Online Readiness Assessment San Diego Community College: Online Learning Readiness Assessment Illinois Online Network: Self Evaluation for Potential Online Students University of Houston: Test of Online Learning SuccessI took two, then became curious and took all... I responded sincerely to all the questions and got from the University of Houston the advice to improve on some aspects. I was not in the worse cluster, nor the best but in the one of those who have to manage a few things to ensure a successful on-line curriculum. Penn State was OK, as well as San Diego, but the most enthousiastic was the Illinois Online Network:
Sign me up! You are a great candidate for online learning.Were is the difference from? Indeed from the nature of the questions and the range of possibility to respond. In the case of Houston, it is possible to "strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree". So, for some questions "neither agree nor disagree" is often the best response as long as you consider it as expressing that actually the response is: it depends. For example, for the question "I am capable of making time for my coursework", a sincere response is: it depends, as you may be willing to but for many reasons you cannot. Actually, such questionnaires may be reliable on questions dealing with accessibility to the network and to a good enough computer, and with computational skills. It is much more debatable for the assessment of dimensions of the personality or of learning skills. Just take the case of procrastination, (in many culture) people may not admit it publicly, if even they understand the word.
Let say, that alternatively a short document should advice the potential user of the kind of access to technology and of the basic skills they need in order to engage. Going ahead is than a question of responsibility on their side. If they think that they have a not a sufficient access to technology or not enough skills, then open to them the possibility to express it and ask for support. For the rest, the technology must be able to figure out what are the difficulty of the learner. To take an example, procrastination can be identified from the log and a support could be kindly and politely offered. By the way, I am late in achieving the tasks in ocTEL although I don't look at myself as a procrastinator... it just happens that this #ocTEL MOOC cannot be at the highest level of priority of my to-do list; but the technology should recognize that I keep going and maintain effort to keep in the main stream.
Although I know something on TEL and I have used several educational software, I have no experience of online learning. #ocTEL is my first experience, so I can take it and myself as a case to explore expectations and concerns. The main point is that I expected a course and I feel more engaged in a kind of speedy brainstorming on learning and technology. The technology works well and is friendly to the skills of a normal digital immigrant (not a native). The quantity of events and contribution is hugged, it is not obvious to connect and take benefit from participating in this emergent community of practice. But, I don't surrender, so see you in the next Blog post which will be on Activity 2.2 and about the webinar (which I attended on week 2).
dimanche 28 avril 2013
#ocTEL MOOC (week 1 Laurillard Downes webinar) Surprise, surprise, language may be the problem.
Among the recommended resources to "watch, read and research" to prepare week 1 of the #ocTEL course, there was a discussion between Diana Laurillard and Stephen Downes on the extent to which learning design should be supported computationally – (look at the webinar recording [here]). The discussion started by a presentation by Diana Laurillard of the Learning Designer, a "software to engage university teachers in the design of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) which is informed by pedagogic research and appropriate theories of teaching and learning." Then followed a presentation by Stephen Downes looking at learning design as a language, and hence with the power and the limits of a language. As we know,language is a tool to communicate, to represent, to share, to argue and to reason. But to some extent it is a poor and complex way of representing and communicating, and at the same time a marvellous and powerful instrument. That is our everyday reality... nevertheless, language is necessary for practitioners and researchers. Stephen suggests that the latter tends to conform to the preference of science for "pure abstraction and formalism" (Bourbaki would have said "naïve formalism", indeed beyond toy examples only computers handle pure formalism), whereas reality is always more complex than whatever formalism can capture. Then comes the difficult question: "Is there a functionally useful language which can describe learning and teaching?" I guess that if the response is "no", then the ambition of Learning Designer (and the project of the like) shrinks dramatically or even worse becomes irrelevant; if the response is "yes", it may be because of a "hidden positivism" and the dream for a language about learning being interpretation independent (a "stupid" language). This is a rough summary, I agree, but I think fair to the content of the discussion and enough for the comments I would like to share.
When we engage in a discussion, there is always the tacit assumption that it exists and/or it is possible to build a common language even if locally in time and space for the sake of the communication. Many events during the conversation are meant to call for or facilitate this construction (esp. all the events revealing misunderstanding). Indeed, articulating and interpreting are the key processes. It may be the case that this common linguistic space vanishes with the end of the conversation; this is not a problem as long as it has played its role. But there are situations in which it is better if we have not to build again this space, for example for teacher training courses. This means that it exists a de facto functional language useful to describe learning and teaching, it is the language of training, or the language of the professional literature, or the language of the #ocTEL MOOC. This does not mean that it is completely fixed, static, unified and unique. On the contrary this language evolves under the requirements of practice and with the improvement of our understanding of teaching and learning. It is a language rich enough to welcome a variety of approaches and theories, from constructivism to connectivism. Actually, it is not because there would be a common language that we would have a unique model of learning and teaching. Such a language must be flexible and open enough to express different models (just as the mathematical formalism allows to express Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry, as it were). Indeed, we must keep in mind that this common language is a social construct.
Looking at these issues from a scientific perspective, there are some objectives which come into play which change the ambition. Since I think that this conversation is not the kind philosophers had at the birth of psychology as a science, I accept the idea that it is good and possible to identify invariants in learning and teaching, and that it is possible to model some of the phenomena which arise with both. To describe them and to come collectively to an agreement on the validity of the related claims, it is indeed necessary first to have a precise language (and hence definitions) and some insurance that interpretation will be under (a reasonable) control. Indeed, this implies abstraction, that is: not taking all the complexity of teaching-learning on board. This is not a problem as long as researchers are not dogmatic and humble enough to be clear about this limit. It is here that we have the problem of communication between research and practice, which in fact is a problem only when underestimated or forgotten. No body is right by principle, we must have discussions, argumentations, efforts to share a language as a condition to understand the models and there limits, possibly indeed their failure. The computational support of learning design is just a specific case for this issue. It means that the science of teaching-learning as made enough progress to make such computational models possible. Indeed, such a model, even Learning Designer, is conjectural: it has to be discussed, its limits must be explore. It is important that users be aware that buying the software, they buy the underlying approach and model of teaching-learning. Hence, they have not to look at it as the orthodox way of thinking, but a possible way that they must confront to their own understanding, perspective and practice.
From these confrontations among practitioners, among researchers, and between practitioners and researchers will come the progress of our knowledge about teaching and learning theoretically and in practice. So, language is not a problem, it is a tool which gets its strength and efficiency from its adaptivity and dynamic nature (even in science which vocabulary and meaning evolve continuously).
When we engage in a discussion, there is always the tacit assumption that it exists and/or it is possible to build a common language even if locally in time and space for the sake of the communication. Many events during the conversation are meant to call for or facilitate this construction (esp. all the events revealing misunderstanding). Indeed, articulating and interpreting are the key processes. It may be the case that this common linguistic space vanishes with the end of the conversation; this is not a problem as long as it has played its role. But there are situations in which it is better if we have not to build again this space, for example for teacher training courses. This means that it exists a de facto functional language useful to describe learning and teaching, it is the language of training, or the language of the professional literature, or the language of the #ocTEL MOOC. This does not mean that it is completely fixed, static, unified and unique. On the contrary this language evolves under the requirements of practice and with the improvement of our understanding of teaching and learning. It is a language rich enough to welcome a variety of approaches and theories, from constructivism to connectivism. Actually, it is not because there would be a common language that we would have a unique model of learning and teaching. Such a language must be flexible and open enough to express different models (just as the mathematical formalism allows to express Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry, as it were). Indeed, we must keep in mind that this common language is a social construct.
Looking at these issues from a scientific perspective, there are some objectives which come into play which change the ambition. Since I think that this conversation is not the kind philosophers had at the birth of psychology as a science, I accept the idea that it is good and possible to identify invariants in learning and teaching, and that it is possible to model some of the phenomena which arise with both. To describe them and to come collectively to an agreement on the validity of the related claims, it is indeed necessary first to have a precise language (and hence definitions) and some insurance that interpretation will be under (a reasonable) control. Indeed, this implies abstraction, that is: not taking all the complexity of teaching-learning on board. This is not a problem as long as researchers are not dogmatic and humble enough to be clear about this limit. It is here that we have the problem of communication between research and practice, which in fact is a problem only when underestimated or forgotten. No body is right by principle, we must have discussions, argumentations, efforts to share a language as a condition to understand the models and there limits, possibly indeed their failure. The computational support of learning design is just a specific case for this issue. It means that the science of teaching-learning as made enough progress to make such computational models possible. Indeed, such a model, even Learning Designer, is conjectural: it has to be discussed, its limits must be explore. It is important that users be aware that buying the software, they buy the underlying approach and model of teaching-learning. Hence, they have not to look at it as the orthodox way of thinking, but a possible way that they must confront to their own understanding, perspective and practice.
From these confrontations among practitioners, among researchers, and between practitioners and researchers will come the progress of our knowledge about teaching and learning theoretically and in practice. So, language is not a problem, it is a tool which gets its strength and efficiency from its adaptivity and dynamic nature (even in science which vocabulary and meaning evolve continuously).
jeudi 25 avril 2013
#ocTEL MOOC (week 1 A12) Snapshot on our approach and practice
First, I would very much like to balance directivity which would allow me to know where I am going as a learner and whether I am not too far out of the track, and autonomy which would allow me to experience knowledge and build my own understanding. I imagine that this opinion is very common.
Although important, the social dimension was not the main thing, apart from the joy of collectively arguing. Actually it depends on the content at stake. In mathematics and natural sciences learning collaboratively is quite productive thanks to the fact that the disciplines clearly gives the rules to solve conflict. In literature and several other topics, this is more difficult and the benefit of social interaction is less clear; indeed it brings the context to shape arguments and learn how to manage contradictions. It is a case where "reflective communication with the instructor" is really beneficial.
Hence, I would not fill one graph, but one for each discipline.From a teacher perspective ("My course"), my first concern once I know what I want to teach is to find a way to pass to students the understanding that there is somewhere a problem and that the knowledge I claim to bring to them is the optimal one (possibly the not the only one) to solve this problem. For this, I start by a situation which allow students to express views, opinion, conceptions about a situation which later on will appear to be problematic in the sense I need in order to teach. If this is successful, for example (A11) having shaped a variety of evidence based opinions on behaviourism, I would stimulate the formulation of the problem(s) which will be the best to justify the knowledge I target, for example (A11) the problem of nature of the meaning built at an outcome come of the learning situation and the problem of its assessment. We understand that these situations blend individual, social and with-the-teacher situations.
Actually, this view is substantiated by the Theory of Didactical Situation, which provides the tools to assess continuously the relations between the activity, the situation and knowledge (to be learned, as it were).
mercredi 24 avril 2013
#ocTEL MOOC (week 1 A11 ) Champions and critics of teaching machines
The task: Watch this 6 minute video on Teaching Machines, presented by B.F. Skinner (exact date is unverified but believed to be in the 1950s). To put it in historical context, you may find it useful to skim this short history of instructional design, which is itself a historical artefact from the early years of the World Wide Web.
Pick one or two of the following thinkers or approaches and read a bit about them, starting with the resources linked. What would they like about the Teaching Machines approach? What would they oppose, and what alternatives would they propose? Explore the notes made by two or three of your fellow participants. What patterns do you detect? (Socratic Method, Communities of Practice (Etienne Wenger), Paulo Freire, Ivan Illich, Social Constructivism, Actor Network Theory, Emergent Learning Model).
I have some ideas about Teaching machines and Behaviourism, but it is the first time that I hear Skinner himself and his view about his machine. The first thing to be noticed is the rather modern discourse about this "device which creates vastly improved conditions for effective study": one machine per child, immediate feedback (like cognitive tutors), learners relieved from uncertainty or anxiety. Eventually the "work" of students is "pleasurable" with "intense concentration". Personalisation is the main benefit from Teaching machine, Skinner emphasizes that it generates interest and enthusiasm, the student moving at his own pace despite the heterogeneity of the classroom. However, the design of the Teaching machine is based on Behaviourism, a learning theory for which we know now the key weaknesses. The argument of Skinner was that the learner would cover the curriculum passing through "a large number of very small steps" carefully ordered maximizing the chance for most students to be right (actually, Skinner mentions that learners are right almost 95% of the time).
Considered with what now know or through the lenses of more recent learning theories we can see several important differences and missing points, if not wrong principles of Behaviourism. Essentially: the reductionist view of knowledge (seen as the sum of its components), the cognitively passive involvement of active learners (and indeed, we can see how active they are in this short video), the social dimension totally absent.
I have some ideas about Teaching machines and Behaviourism, but it is the first time that I hear Skinner himself and his view about his machine. The first thing to be noticed is the rather modern discourse about this "device which creates vastly improved conditions for effective study": one machine per child, immediate feedback (like cognitive tutors), learners relieved from uncertainty or anxiety. Eventually the "work" of students is "pleasurable" with "intense concentration". Personalisation is the main benefit from Teaching machine, Skinner emphasizes that it generates interest and enthusiasm, the student moving at his own pace despite the heterogeneity of the classroom. However, the design of the Teaching machine is based on Behaviourism, a learning theory for which we know now the key weaknesses. The argument of Skinner was that the learner would cover the curriculum passing through "a large number of very small steps" carefully ordered maximizing the chance for most students to be right (actually, Skinner mentions that learners are right almost 95% of the time).
Considered with what now know or through the lenses of more recent learning theories we can see several important differences and missing points, if not wrong principles of Behaviourism. Essentially: the reductionist view of knowledge (seen as the sum of its components), the cognitively passive involvement of active learners (and indeed, we can see how active they are in this short video), the social dimension totally absent.
mardi 23 avril 2013
#ocTEL: my first MOOC experience (week 0 Webinar)
This first ocTEL webinar is introduced by Davib Jennings, the project manager. Then Diana Laurillard proposes a synthesis of the "Big questions in TEL" that we have proposed. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate in the webinar this time, but read the slides and learn and comment from them.
The ocTEL participants' big questions split in two groups: pedagogic and strategic with just one question recorded in the latter.
The main challenge seems to be able to solve this "ratio problem". Eventually, I am somewhat surprised. I perfectly understand that the economy of education is a real problem (especially nowadays), but having it on the fore front invites to look at TEL in rather specific way; it makes me wonder what will be the orientation of the course. In any case, I am still interested to learn. Let's see!
The ocTEL participants' big questions split in two groups: pedagogic and strategic with just one question recorded in the latter.
The pedagogic questions selected are mainly organisational (dealing with time zones, large lecture-only courses, balance between guidance and freedom, balance between teachers and learners needs). Some questions address directly learning issues (ensuring the desired outcomes, assessing learning outcomes). Hence, if ocTEL is meant to help its users to find responses to their questions, one expect that it gives some elements and principles to analyse the characteristics of a TEL environment from the perspective of learning management, and some elements to assess learning qualitatively (nature of the outcomes). My own big question about learning outcomes is considered, having it in mind might be a relevant guide to drive my participation.
The strategic question: "how do we persuade 'reluctant' members of staff to engage with TEL" is of a different nature than the former indeed, but it is closer to the so-called "Candidate big questions" which are of a "cultural", "management" and "economic" nature.As a matter of fact, economy seems to be the keyword describing at best the core content of this presentation, with one equation which I discover :
1:25 staff:student
The main challenge seems to be able to solve this "ratio problem". Eventually, I am somewhat surprised. I perfectly understand that the economy of education is a real problem (especially nowadays), but having it on the fore front invites to look at TEL in rather specific way; it makes me wonder what will be the orientation of the course. In any case, I am still interested to learn. Let's see!
samedi 6 avril 2013
#ocTEL: my first MOOC experience (week 0 A02 A03)
Satisfied: I have found the way to limit the mail I receive from the mailing list to a summary. Still, there is quite a lot to read:
To start, I have joined the "Small group for art, design and architecture" for two reasons: the first is that it is a domain which I don't know so I will have the opportunity to follow and possibly contribute as a learner, second I am interested in contemporary art (on which I write but not in English).
PS: to have an account to register a mailing list, an other one to upload a picture, is a bit too much. I think that such a platform should offer single sign-on.
April 5: "83 messages totaling 9277 lines in this issue."To be frank it is a bit discouraging. The invitation to "Read other people’s accounts from the previous activities and comment on what you observe about individual preferences and other differences" in 30 mins is a somewhat optimistic. I think that I will postpone exploring who is there and wait until the real course has started; I may be in a better position to understand how to organise my exploration in relation with the issues raised and the real content of the MOOC.
April 6: "38 messages totaling 7531 lines in this issue."
To start, I have joined the "Small group for art, design and architecture" for two reasons: the first is that it is a domain which I don't know so I will have the opportunity to follow and possibly contribute as a learner, second I am interested in contemporary art (on which I write but not in English).
PS: to have an account to register a mailing list, an other one to upload a picture, is a bit too much. I think that such a platform should offer single sign-on.
jeudi 4 avril 2013
This first week, interestingly numbered "0", the ocTEL MOOC has five activities which add up to about 4 hours of work. It is designed in a way which first invite you to think why you are here, and second to stimulate socialization.
My first impression, before starting effective working, is that there really a lot of informations to go through. So, I understand the importance of the advice: "keeping calm in the face of abundance" (I may already join Patrick plea: "please stop emailing me, my inbox is full & I can't turn it off on your website" -- may be an idea: create a dedicated mailbox when joining a MOOC...). Any way, I have to dive into real activities, for the time being it is A-0.1.
My first impression, before starting effective working, is that there really a lot of informations to go through. So, I understand the importance of the advice: "keeping calm in the face of abundance" (I may already join Patrick plea: "please stop emailing me, my inbox is full & I can't turn it off on your website" -- may be an idea: create a dedicated mailbox when joining a MOOC...). Any way, I have to dive into real activities, for the time being it is A-0.1.
My big question:
How to reliably make sense and assess learners' learning outcomes which result from their use of a TEL environment?This question may seem close to a question like "do they learn?", actually my point here is "what do they learn?" (I may add "precisely"). Being able to respond to this question will allow us to better respond to many other questions which come from teachers, parents, decision makers and advisers, as well as designers and indeed learners themselves (what do I know now and better, that I didn't know before?)
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)