Showing posts with label online. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online. Show all posts

Monday, August 12, 2013

Top UK universities launch free online courses

Prof Martin Bean, vice chancellor of the Open University, which has led the way in online learning


Prof Martin Bean, vice chancellor of the Open University, which is funding FutureLearn. Photograph: Kelly Cooper


Eleven top UK universities are joining the Open University to launch free internet courses, in a bid to catch up with the elite US institutions that have led the way online.


King's College London, along with the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, East Anglia, Exeter, Lancaster, Leeds, Southampton, St Andrews and Warwick have partnered with FutureLearn, a company set up by the Open University that will offer free, non-credit bearing courses to internet-users around the world.


The courses are modelled on the US phenomenon 'massive open online courses' (Moocs), which have attracted millions of users across the globe, and are especially popular in emerging economies – a key market place for UK universities.


FutureLearn will promote UK institutions to international students, said Prof Martin Bean, vice-chancellor of the Open University.


"At the moment foreign students' perception of UK universities is: wonderful history, great tradition, really good teaching, but a bit boring.


"It's absolutely unacceptable that the number one or two brand for higher education in the world should be lagging in the areas of innovation in terms of HE. We need to inject that front-foot, innovative flavour if we're to compete with the US."


Universities minister David Willetts said the partnership – which has received cross-party support and involves universities from Scotland, Wales and England – will put the UK at the heart of online education.


"Massive open online courses present an opportunity for us to widen access to, and meet the global demand for higher education. This is growing rapidly in emerging economies like Brazil, India and China."


The UK higher education industry, which is worth £14 billion, stands in the top five export earners for Britain.


Moocs have grown rapidly in the US over the past year, with two providers leading the field. Coursera offers courses from 33 universities, including Princeton, Brown, Columbia and Duke and has reached more than 1.7 million users.


EdX, a nonprofit start-up from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has 370,000 students enrolled on online courses this autumn.


Simon Nelson, one of the key architects of BBC Online, will head FutureLearn as launch CEO. He says that the company will focus on providing quality education rather than targeting large numbers but expects it may attract millions.


"It's a really enlightening move for these universities to come together – we'll punch so much harder collectively than any other university would individually."


Partner institutions will be responsible for their own content while the OU, which has been providing distance learning courses since 1971, will assist with course delivery and infrastructure.


While the courses are not meant to rival traditional degrees, Prof Bean hopes the partnership will help democratise education.


"This is also about unlocking institutions to citizens in the UK as well as abroad. There will be people who want to use it for employment outcomes, and we contemplate users will be abe to do a formal inviligated exam if they want to show they were tested to a higher standard of rigour."


A charge for (optional) certificates and exam inviligation will form the company's primary revenue stream. The Open University is the company's only shareholder, though it is not expecting big profits, says Prof Bean.


Details of further universities who may sign up to the deal will be revealed in the new year, as will the courses on offer. "People are really interested in breadth," says Prof Bean. "FutureLearn will roam the tapestry of HE and not be bound to any particular discipline. But ultimately the crowd will decide."


Leighton Andrews, Welsh minister for education and skills has welcomed the partnership, saying: "I have encouraged the higher education sector in Wales as a whole to engage with this is a serious way. The area of open education resources is a fast-moving field in which the power of the internet and information technology can transform access to learning globally."


Leeds University say the partnership will also benefit students studying on campus: "And our current students will have access to a rich, interactive set of resources, from both Leeds and our partners. In line with the Leeds Curriculum, this will help give them a deeper and fuller understanding of their field of study as well as encouraging them to broaden their education beyond their main subject areas."


View the original article here

Should 'real' students do an online course on the side?

Student doing online class, mooc


Boost your cv with a mooc. Photograph: Alamy


Universities have started giving away their content free as "massive open online courses", with the satisfyingly ridiculous acronym mooc (I challenge you to say it three times with a straight face).


Eleven top UK universities recently announced they were joining the Open University to launch FutureLearn, in a bid to catch up with the elite US institutions that have led the way in teaching huge numbers online.


It all sounds great for people who, for one reason or another, can't go to a traditional university. But do moocs have anything to offer students already studying at a bricks-and-mortar institution? People like me, who hate the niggling feeling that they might be missing out on a bargain?


Well, I've signed up for a mooc in microeconomics. I did it because I'm thinking about whether to do a masters, and what to study. I'm testing my resolve: if I enjoy it enough to study in my own time, maybe I'm ready for masters. Better to find out before I hand over the money.


Why else would a university student consider a mooc? You could use it to boost CV – it shows you're motivated, you have a variety of interests and you're not struggling with your workload. Although before you sign up for 10 (I mean, they're free, right?) have a read of Leonie Veerman's blog on why you shouldn't live for your CV.


And before you can use an online course to help you get a job, employers have to learn what they are and respect them. University isn't just about what you learn but proving you know it. The only proof you did your mooc is that you clicked on "I promise not to cheat" on the honour code. This is changing though: one of the biggest mooc organisers, Coursera, is trialling facial recognition software to monitor students, and charging a small fee for verification.


Moocs are extra tuition from a different perspective. Dreading that compulsory class you know you'll suck at, the one with the 50% fail rate? Mooc to the rescue. Free preparation: better than failing and suffering the consequences to your grade point average and student loan.


Do moocs pose a threat to old school universities? Should we fear that, before we've even paid them off, traditional university degrees will go the way of floppy disks?


Probably not. As Patrick McGee writes, they are a long way from ready to replace traditional degrees. A mooc v trad uni mega-battle to the death is unlikely – instead online courses offer another option on higher education's menu of delights.


Moocs still have teething problems. A Coursera course – oh so ironically about planning online courses – crashed recently, unable to cope with the thousands of students trying to join online discussions. Moocs are limited to subjects that can be assessed with multiple choice exams, marked automatically. Written any essays in your degree? Your professor's critique of them can't be replicated by a mooc – yet.


As for me, despite not making a single friend in a cohort of 37,000, I revelled in the chance to learn what I was interested in, on my own terms. Moocs are a new take on education – and we traditional university students needn't miss out.


View the original article here

Open online courses – an avalanche that might just get stopped

University lecture: is there really a substitute for face-to-face learning in higher education?


 Is there really a substitute for face-to-face learning in higher education? Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian


These days there are plenty of prophets preaching hi-tech and digital solutions to the problems of expanding access to knowledge and higher education. Barely a week goes by without some new hymn to education technology, open-source software or open-access publishing. In the US, the growing chorus for online education through massive open online courses, or moocs, has been deafening. But in Britain, it has barely registered. Last December, the commercial launch of the Open University's mooc platform, FutureLearn, attracted the participation of a dozen universities and the support of David Willetts, but little response from Britain's beleaguered academics. No wonder that last month Sir Michael Barber, the chief education adviser of Pearson, the world's largest profit-making education provider, proclaimed that universities were powerless to stop the online avalanche.


Across the Atlantic, the debate about online courses and their potential to restructure higher education has been raging for some time. New companies and consortia of universities with hi-tech names such as Udacity, edX and Coursera are competing to provide rival mooc platforms. These moocs are available free to anyone, but they do not earn you any credits towards a degree or diploma. No one has yet figured out how to make money from them. Nowhere has this been more evident than at the University of California, where UCOnline, set up with a $7m (£4.5m) loan in 2011, has spectacularly failed to pay for itself, let alone generate income.


Historically, the University of California has often proved a weathervane for global trends in higher education. It was at the forefront of creating a mass public higher education system in the 1960s, and disinvestment from the 1980s onward generated dramatic fee increases, layoffs, protests and occupations that subsequently spread around the world. So when Californian politicians (led by Governor Jerry Brown, who has pledged $37m for online initiatives) and university administrators still believe online platforms are a golden bullet that promises to expand access while reducing costs and students' time to degree, we have to take them seriously. It is not often that the interests of vote-hungry politicians, resource-starved administrators and academics entranced by the democratic potential of open online courses all converge.


And yet when a Californian senator outlined a bill that would allow students in the state to take online classes from a private provider for credit, it unleashed a storm of criticism. A UC faculty petition collected more than 1,000 signatures in 48 hours. As news spread across the US, condemnation came from the Campaign for the Future of Higher Education and a New York Times editorial.


Those who teach in California's system of higher education are not luddites. Neither were they simply alarmed at the attempts to bypass established mechanisms of peer review and quality control of classes. In the face of the uproar, these have now been dropped. But the stakes are far greater than faculty control and oversight.


If private providers are allowed to run classes for credit in California's public system, it will accelerate privatisation. It will solve the conundrum of how to make profits out of moocs by providing private providers with a revenue stream from public funds. This type of back-door privatisation, rather than the likes of Pearson taking over a whole campus, seems a real and present danger in the English and Welsh system.


Private online providers have long been criticised in the US for profiting on the back of federal-funded loans to disadvantaged students, who rarely complete their classes. While online providers have proved remarkably reticent about making this type of data available, two studies from Columbia University researchers have shown the uneven effects of online classes. In Washington and Virginia they found that underachieving, minority and disadvantaged students fared particularly badly when they took online classes. The promise of moocs to improve access and democratise knowledge is a chimera.


The bottom line is that there really is no replacement for face-to-face interaction between academics and students. Digital and online methods can enrich those interactions, but it seems unlikely they can replace them in anything other than a greatly impoverished way without the investment of considerable resources. No wonder 72% of those who have taught moocs over the past three years believe students who took their classes had not done sufficient work to deserve credit from their institution.


This might just be one avalanche that gets stopped – events in California may well be the test of that.


• James Vernon teaches history at the University of California, Berkeley


View the original article here

Online students and teachers are no different from the rest of academia

I'm online note on a keyboard


 Why is teaching online still viewed with prejudice by some academics? Photograph: allOver photography/Alamy


My name is David Newton, professor of business studies. I'm an online higher education tutor. Some of you may read that last sentence as a confession, rather than a simple statement of fact. Why? In my view, it is because – despite its growing popularity and valuable role in the future of higher education – online learning is still a mystery to many in academia, and viewed with prejudice by some.


Take me, for example. People assume I'm some new breed of academic. I'm not. I am currently a tutor and programme director for undergraduate and MBA business degrees with a respected online learning provider. But my background is no different from any other university professor. I've worked in numerous UK and overseas universities, researched and published widely, and was dean of business and vice-principal at the Royal Agricultural College, where I still hold a visiting professorship in strategic management.


I'm not a radical, or anti-establishment – I've loved and respected working at every university I've joined. I just happen to have moved into a different learning delivery model because I knew it would give me greater flexibility to continue with my academic interests and spend more time with my family. It's a model that fits around my life.


That's something I share in common with my students. They aren't unusual either. They just choose to study online because the flexibility suits them. Online higher education means students can combine education with employment – often fast-tracking their careers as a result – or fit study around family commitments.


These students don't pursue online degrees as second best, nor are they students who have somehow been enticed away from traditional universities with promises of a better answer. They choose to study online because it simply works better for them. In most cases, it's also a far more affordable option than a campus-based degree – and it's clear that financial factors are increasingly driving higher education choices across the board.


So what are online students like? They're just like any other students pursuing academic objectives. The only real difference is that they tend to have more 'real world' experience. Because a lot of my students are in employment, they are much quicker to grasp theory and see how it can be put into practice. They therefore push us to reflect that in the course content; tutorials will commonly feature their real-life experiences, a benefit for all.


Tutorials are another aspect of online higher education that seems to mystify and confuse the onlooker. The popular myth is that online education means reduced contact time and poorer quality provision – whereas in fact the opposite is true.


When I was teaching on campuses, I often found students were reluctant to knock on my office door or kept quiet during a traditional face-to-face tutorial session – particularly those who were struggling with a topic. Technology, now ubiquitous in modern life, has removed those barriers.


In my current role, students are quite happy to email me and debate ideas or take part in interactive 'live chat' video tutorials. These are held very frequently – typically, I will host six tutorials per module, per quarter. Forums are another powerful tool for encouraging quality interaction – again, using familiar technology to encourage the lively exchange of ideas and independent thinking.


And what about the quality of the qualifications themselves? Surely an online degree must have different academic processes or standards? Well, no actually. Where I work, the same academic processes are in place that you would find in any UK university – and in many cases, I would argue that they even go further.


For example, we report to external exam boards four times a year via exam committees and conduct external verification of exam papers, module content, and samples of marking. We are also encouraged to assess and reassess our work continually – for example, producing continuous module reports to highlight student performance, any technical issues, and suggested improvements.


The quality of the learning we provide and the impact it has on students' lives is what has always driven me – and continues to do so. Knowing that I'm able to give people a quality academic experience, via a flexible model that makes learning possible for them, is a great motivator.


I'm not saying that online higher education is a model that will replace traditional universities. It won't and I don't think it should. The two are complementary. But it is a model that meets the needs of an ever growing group that prefers to study this way – and a vital means of ensuring UK higher education retains its share of the international market. There is no mystery about it. All the traditional elements of university learning are still there, they are simply adapted for a technological generation.


Professor David Newton is a module tutor and programme director of undergraduate business programmes for online learning provider RDI – follow it on Twitter @RDIonline


This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, become a member of the Higher Education Network.


View the original article here

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Online students and teachers are no different from the rest of academia

I'm online note on a keyboard


Why is teaching online still viewed with prejudice by some academics? Photograph: allOver photography/Alamy


My name is David Newton, professor of business studies. I'm an online higher education tutor. Some of you may read that last sentence as a confession, rather than a simple statement of fact. Why? In my view, it is because – despite its growing popularity and valuable role in the future of higher education – online learning is still a mystery to many in academia, and viewed with prejudice by some.


Take me, for example. People assume I'm some new breed of academic. I'm not. I am currently a tutor and programme director for undergraduate and MBA business degrees with a respected online learning provider. But my background is no different from any other university professor. I've worked in numerous UK and overseas universities, researched and published widely, and was dean of business and vice-principal at the Royal Agricultural College, where I still hold a visiting professorship in strategic management.


I'm not a radical, or anti-establishment – I've loved and respected working at every university I've joined. I just happen to have moved into a different learning delivery model because I knew it would give me greater flexibility to continue with my academic interests and spend more time with my family. It's a model that fits around my life.


That's something I share in common with my students. They aren't unusual either. They just choose to study online because the flexibility suits them. Online higher education means students can combine education with employment – often fast-tracking their careers as a result – or fit study around family commitments.


These students don't pursue online degrees as second best, nor are they students who have somehow been enticed away from traditional universities with promises of a better answer. They choose to study online because it simply works better for them. In most cases, it's also a far more affordable option than a campus-based degree – and it's clear that financial factors are increasingly driving higher education choices across the board.


So what are online students like? They're just like any other students pursuing academic objectives. The only real difference is that they tend to have more 'real world' experience. Because a lot of my students are in employment, they are much quicker to grasp theory and see how it can be put into practice. They therefore push us to reflect that in the course content; tutorials will commonly feature their real-life experiences, a benefit for all.


Tutorials are another aspect of online higher education that seems to mystify and confuse the onlooker. The popular myth is that online education means reduced contact time and poorer quality provision – whereas in fact the opposite is true.


When I was teaching on campuses, I often found students were reluctant to knock on my office door or kept quiet during a traditional face-to-face tutorial session – particularly those who were struggling with a topic. Technology, now ubiquitous in modern life, has removed those barriers.


In my current role, students are quite happy to email me and debate ideas or take part in interactive 'live chat' video tutorials. These are held very frequently – typically, I will host six tutorials per module, per quarter. Forums are another powerful tool for encouraging quality interaction – again, using familiar technology to encourage the lively exchange of ideas and independent thinking.


And what about the quality of the qualifications themselves? Surely an online degree must have different academic processes or standards? Well, no actually. Where I work, the same academic processes are in place that you would find in any UK university – and in many cases, I would argue that they even go further.


For example, we report to external exam boards four times a year via exam committees and conduct external verification of exam papers, module content, and samples of marking. We are also encouraged to assess and reassess our work continually – for example, producing continuous module reports to highlight student performance, any technical issues, and suggested improvements.


The quality of the learning we provide and the impact it has on students' lives is what has always driven me – and continues to do so. Knowing that I'm able to give people a quality academic experience, via a flexible model that makes learning possible for them, is a great motivator.


I'm not saying that online higher education is a model that will replace traditional universities. It won't and I don't think it should. The two are complementary. But it is a model that meets the needs of an ever growing group that prefers to study this way – and a vital means of ensuring UK higher education retains its share of the international market. There is no mystery about it. All the traditional elements of university learning are still there, they are simply adapted for a technological generation.


Professor David Newton is a module tutor and programme director of undergraduate business programmes for online learning provider RDI – follow it on Twitter @RDIonline


This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, become a member of the Higher Education Network.


View the original article here

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Open online courses – an avalanche that might just get stopped

University lecture: is there really a substitute for face-to-face learning in higher education? Is there really a substitute for face-to-face learning in higher education? Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

These days there are plenty of prophets preaching hi-tech and digital solutions to the problems of expanding access to knowledge and higher education. Barely a week goes by without some new hymn to education technology, open-source software or open-access publishing. In the US, the growing chorus for online education through massive open online courses, or moocs, has been deafening. But in Britain, it has barely registered. Last December, the commercial launch of the Open University's mooc platform, FutureLearn, attracted the participation of a dozen universities and the support of David Willetts, but little response from Britain's beleaguered academics. No wonder that last month Sir Michael Barber, the chief education adviser of Pearson, the world's largest profit-making education provider, proclaimed that universities were powerless to stop the online avalanche.

Across the Atlantic, the debate about online courses and their potential to restructure higher education has been raging for some time. New companies and consortia of universities with hi-tech names such as Udacity, edX and Coursera are competing to provide rival mooc platforms. These moocs are available free to anyone, but they do not earn you any credits towards a degree or diploma. No one has yet figured out how to make money from them. Nowhere has this been more evident than at the University of California, where UCOnline, set up with a $7m (£4.5m) loan in 2011, has spectacularly failed to pay for itself, let alone generate income.

Historically, the University of California has often proved a weathervane for global trends in higher education. It was at the forefront of creating a mass public higher education system in the 1960s, and disinvestment from the 1980s onward generated dramatic fee increases, layoffs, protests and occupations that subsequently spread around the world. So when Californian politicians (led by Governor Jerry Brown, who has pledged $37m for online initiatives) and university administrators still believe online platforms are a golden bullet that promises to expand access while reducing costs and students' time to degree, we have to take them seriously. It is not often that the interests of vote-hungry politicians, resource-starved administrators and academics entranced by the democratic potential of open online courses all converge.

And yet when a Californian senator outlined a bill that would allow students in the state to take online classes from a private provider for credit, it unleashed a storm of criticism. A UC faculty petition collected more than 1,000 signatures in 48 hours. As news spread across the US, condemnation came from the Campaign for the Future of Higher Education and a New York Times editorial.

Those who teach in California's system of higher education are not luddites. Neither were they simply alarmed at the attempts to bypass established mechanisms of peer review and quality control of classes. In the face of the uproar, these have now been dropped. But the stakes are far greater than faculty control and oversight.

If private providers are allowed to run classes for credit in California's public system, it will accelerate privatisation. It will solve the conundrum of how to make profits out of moocs by providing private providers with a revenue stream from public funds. This type of back-door privatisation, rather than the likes of Pearson taking over a whole campus, seems a real and present danger in the English and Welsh system.

Private online providers have long been criticised in the US for profiting on the back of federal-funded loans to disadvantaged students, who rarely complete their classes. While online providers have proved remarkably reticent about making this type of data available, two studies from Columbia University researchers have shown the uneven effects of online classes. In Washington and Virginia they found that underachieving, minority and disadvantaged students fared particularly badly when they took online classes. The promise of moocs to improve access and democratise knowledge is a chimera.

The bottom line is that there really is no replacement for face-to-face interaction between academics and students. Digital and online methods can enrich those interactions, but it seems unlikely they can replace them in anything other than a greatly impoverished way without the investment of considerable resources. No wonder 72% of those who have taught moocs over the past three years believe students who took their classes had not done sufficient work to deserve credit from their institution.

This might just be one avalanche that gets stopped – events in California may well be the test of that.

• James Vernon teaches history at the University of California, Berkeley


View the original article here

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Should 'real' students do an online course on the side?

Student doing online class, mooc


 Boost your cv with a mooc. Photograph: Alamy


Universities have started giving away their content free as "massive open online courses", with the satisfyingly ridiculous acronym mooc (I challenge you to say it three times with a straight face).


Eleven top UK universities recently announced they were joining the Open University to launch FutureLearn, in a bid to catch up with the elite US institutions that have led the way in teaching huge numbers online.


It all sounds great for people who, for one reason or another, can't go to a traditional university. But do moocs have anything to offer students already studying at a bricks-and-mortar institution? People like me, who hate the niggling feeling that they might be missing out on a bargain?


Well, I've signed up for a mooc in microeconomics. I did it because I'm thinking about whether to do a masters, and what to study. I'm testing my resolve: if I enjoy it enough to study in my own time, maybe I'm ready for masters. Better to find out before I hand over the money.


Why else would a university student consider a mooc? You could use it to boost CV – it shows you're motivated, you have a variety of interests and you're not struggling with your workload. Although before you sign up for 10 (I mean, they're free, right?) have a read of Leonie Veerman's blog on why you shouldn't live for your CV.


And before you can use an online course to help you get a job, employers have to learn what they are and respect them. University isn't just about what you learn but proving you know it. The only proof you did your mooc is that you clicked on "I promise not to cheat" on the honour code. This is changing though: one of the biggest mooc organisers, Coursera, is trialling facial recognition software to monitor students, and charging a small fee for verification.


Moocs are extra tuition from a different perspective. Dreading that compulsory class you know you'll suck at, the one with the 50% fail rate? Mooc to the rescue. Free preparation: better than failing and suffering the consequences to your grade point average and student loan.


Do moocs pose a threat to old school universities? Should we fear that, before we've even paid them off, traditional university degrees will go the way of floppy disks?


Probably not. As Patrick McGee writes, they are a long way from ready to replace traditional degrees. A mooc v trad uni mega-battle to the death is unlikely – instead online courses offer another option on higher education's menu of delights.


Moocs still have teething problems. A Coursera course – oh so ironically about planning online courses – crashed recently, unable to cope with the thousands of students trying to join online discussions. Moocs are limited to subjects that can be assessed with multiple choice exams, marked automatically. Written any essays in your degree? Your professor's critique of them can't be replicated by a mooc – yet.


As for me, despite not making a single friend in a cohort of 37,000, I revelled in the chance to learn what I was interested in, on my own terms. Moocs are a new take on education – and we traditional university students needn't miss out.


View the original article here

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Top UK universities launch free online courses

Prof Martin Bean, vice chancellor of the Open University, which has led the way in online learning Prof Martin Bean, vice chancellor of the Open University, which is funding FutureLearn. Photograph: Kelly Cooper

Eleven top UK universities are joining the Open University to launch free internet courses, in a bid to catch up with the elite US institutions that have led the way online.

King's College London, along with the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, East Anglia, Exeter, Lancaster, Leeds, Southampton, St Andrews and Warwick have partnered with FutureLearn, a company set up by the Open University that will offer free, non-credit bearing courses to internet-users around the world.

The courses are modelled on the US phenomenon 'massive open online courses' (Moocs), which have attracted millions of users across the globe, and are especially popular in emerging economies – a key market place for UK universities.

FutureLearn will promote UK institutions to international students, said Prof Martin Bean, vice-chancellor of the Open University.

"At the moment foreign students' perception of UK universities is: wonderful history, great tradition, really good teaching, but a bit boring.

"It's absolutely unacceptable that the number one or two brand for higher education in the world should be lagging in the areas of innovation in terms of HE. We need to inject that front-foot, innovative flavour if we're to compete with the US."

Universities minister David Willetts said the partnership – which has received cross-party support and involves universities from Scotland, Wales and England – will put the UK at the heart of online education.

"Massive open online courses present an opportunity for us to widen access to, and meet the global demand for higher education. This is growing rapidly in emerging economies like Brazil, India and China."

The UK higher education industry, which is worth £14 billion, stands in the top five export earners for Britain.

Moocs have grown rapidly in the US over the past year, with two providers leading the field. Coursera offers courses from 33 universities, including Princeton, Brown, Columbia and Duke and has reached more than 1.7 million users.

EdX, a nonprofit start-up from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has 370,000 students enrolled on online courses this autumn.

Simon Nelson, one of the key architects of BBC Online, will head FutureLearn as launch CEO. He says that the company will focus on providing quality education rather than targeting large numbers but expects it may attract millions.

"It's a really enlightening move for these universities to come together – we'll punch so much harder collectively than any other university would individually."

Partner institutions will be responsible for their own content while the OU, which has been providing distance learning courses since 1971, will assist with course delivery and infrastructure.

While the courses are not meant to rival traditional degrees, Prof Bean hopes the partnership will help democratise education.

"This is also about unlocking institutions to citizens in the UK as well as abroad. There will be people who want to use it for employment outcomes, and we contemplate users will be abe to do a formal inviligated exam if they want to show they were tested to a higher standard of rigour."

A charge for (optional) certificates and exam inviligation will form the company's primary revenue stream. The Open University is the company's only shareholder, though it is not expecting big profits, says Prof Bean.

Details of further universities who may sign up to the deal will be revealed in the new year, as will the courses on offer. "People are really interested in breadth," says Prof Bean. "FutureLearn will roam the tapestry of HE and not be bound to any particular discipline. But ultimately the crowd will decide."

Leighton Andrews, Welsh minister for education and skills has welcomed the partnership, saying: "I have encouraged the higher education sector in Wales as a whole to engage with this is a serious way. The area of open education resources is a fast-moving field in which the power of the internet and information technology can transform access to learning globally."

Leeds University say the partnership will also benefit students studying on campus: "And our current students will have access to a rich, interactive set of resources, from both Leeds and our partners. In line with the Leeds Curriculum, this will help give them a deeper and fuller understanding of their field of study as well as encouraging them to broaden their education beyond their main subject areas."


View the original article here

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Online learning: pedagogy, technology and opening up higher education

A customer uses computer in an internet cafe at Changzhi Is online learning the answer to widening participation in higher education? Photograph: Stringer Shanghai/Reuters

Higher education has always been fond of its acronyms and they don't get much more prolific than the current four letters doing the rounds. From the December 2011 launch of MITx Stateside to the University of Edinburgh's decision to join the Coursera platform, MOOCs (or Massive Open Online Courses) have barely been off the education news menu. Nor was the Observer alone in recently asking: "Do online courses spell the end for the traditional university?"

Of course, the provision of off-campus higher education is not a recent development. The Open University has championed open and distance learning since 1969 – from its original correspondence courses and late-night TV broadcasts to the latest research and development conducted by its Institute of Educational Technology.

By definition, online learning is the meeting of technology and pedagogy – and universities are still exploring the right balance between the two. In his 2011 slideshare, Guillermo Ramirez outlines 'five big mistakes of virtual education', from the use of the term massive ("you don't have one course of 250, you have 250 courses of one") to the risk of tech taking the fun out of the education process.

MOOC cheerleaders point to their potential for widening access to higher education. "I can see openings where MOOCs might find a useful place in HE," says Jeff Haywood at Edinburgh, "enabling those in less privileged HE settings to access courses in subjects that they cannot take ... and for teachers in universities to pick up new ideas as to how to teach and learn online." And as PhD student Bonnie Stewart blogged for us: "It is this participatory element ... that enables open online experiences to offer value, even to those of us already studying in conventional institutions."

But while take-up is growing so too are drop-outs. An article in the Atlantic cited drop-out rates of 80-95% from MOOCs offered by Stanford, MIT and UC Berkley, before provocatively suggesting "if anything the low rate of success is a sign of the system's efficiency". Meanwhile Patrick McGhee, vice-chancellor of the University of East London, warns: "There is a danger that MOOCs will reinforce rather than disrupt a two-tier education system in the US, and eventually in the UK, with campus-based learning as premium elite education and online learning as a basic offering."

Where do you sit in this debate? And what models are working best for students – and universities? In partnership with the Open University, this week's live chat will consider the new landscape of online learning and how it might open, widen and formalise access to quality higher education. Join our expert panel to talk MOOCs and more on Friday 23 November from 12-2pm GMT.

The debate will take place in the comments section below this article

Josie Taylor is director of the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University with more than 20 years' experience in research, development and evaluation of interactive media and innovative pedagogies

Peter Scott is director of the Knowledge Media Institute at the Open University @peter_scott

John Daniel served as a university president for 17 years in Canada (Laurentian University) and the UK (The Open University) before joining UNESCO as assistant director-general for education in 2001 and assuming the presidency of the Commonwealth of Learning in 2004

Helen Keegan is senior lecturer in interactive media/social technologies at the University of Salford and a UK national teaching fellow at Higher Education Academy @heloukee

David Kernohan is responsible for the JISC/Academy OER programme and other work around learning resources and activities @dkernohan

Tony Bates is president and CEO of Tony Bates Associates Ltd, a private company specialising in the planning and management of e-learning and distance education

Jesse Stommel is assistant professor of English and digital humanities at Marylhurst University in Portland @Jessifer

Jeff Haywood is vice-principal for knowledge management, chief information officer and librarian at the University of Edinburgh

Bonnie Stewart is a writer, PhD student and sessional lecturer in the University of Prince Edward Island's faculty of education @bonstewart

David Glance is director of the University of Western Australia's Centre for Software Practice. The UWA CSP is currently collaborating with Stanford University to build a MOOC platform Class2Go @david_glance

Michael Thomas is senior lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire and editor of a four-volume major work on online learning

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up for free to become a member of the Higher Education Network.


View the original article here

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Why online courses can never totally replace the campus experience

The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences on the campus of Harvard University The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences on the campus of Harvard University. Who wouldn't want a degree from Harvard for free? Photograph: Matthew J Lee/Boston Globe/Getty Images

I have never liked the idea that in the future we should think of students as "customers" with a relationship to universities defined by money. For me, students are primarily learners – a controversial position, I readily concede, but in my defence I see this in the context of new models, new institutions, new technologies and new relationships for learning.

There are some who argue that the future of learning and the student experience is online. Such projections are as old as the internet itself, but they have recently enjoyed renewed interest through the idea of moocs (massive open online courses) where universities provide open access to their learning content through online platforms. Some serious brands have tentatively engaged with the model such as MIT, Harvard, Princeton and Berkeley. These platforms include Udacity and the Khan Institute. One of these, EdX, has said it hopes to teach a billion students; another, Coursera, advertises with the strapline "Take the World's Best Courses, Online, For Free".

On the surface this might appear to be a serious threat to some campus institutions: what simpleton wouldn't want a degree from Harvard for free? Of course, that is not what is, was, or ever will be on offer, but such headlines are irresistible. So far, most mainstream institutions have breezily dismissed the idea of moocs as a genuine threat, specifically because there is no credit or certification offered with these courses (nor, for that matter, much academic or pastoral support either, though you might get a certificate of completion).

Well, some of that might be changing very quickly. Last week, the American Council on Education (ACE) announced the launch of a project, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to evaluate the suitability of courses in moocs for academic credit and then how to award such credit when students have paid for and completed an invigilated assessment. Interestingly, the project's other two strands involve a "presidential innovation lab" (to facilitate "conversations about new academic and financial models inspired by the disruptive potential of moocs") and research into effective pedagogic practice. A "presidential innovation lab" sounds like the ultimate oxymoron to me and research into online pedagogy is nothing new, even if often heralded as such. But I digress.

The broader social agenda here, of course, is in part creating low-cost higher education at the US community college level, with better completion rates. However, there is a danger that moocs with elective assessment and credit will reinforce rather than disrupt a two-tier education system in the US, and eventually in the UK, with campus-based learning as premium elite education and online learning as a basic offering. Helping the poor get a better version of what is ultimately a derivational form of education is a feeble kind of disruption and more of a reproduction of structural educational disadvantage.

Whatever the merits of moocs, and there are many, I instinctively find myself thinking about experiences that cannot be meaningfully created online. For example, at my own institution we have a large "going global" programme where students who might not otherwise get the opportunity are funded to travel overseas on innovative placements. These have included working with Georgian NGOs, Brazilian deforestation prevention teams and Ugandan sexual-health projects.

Similarly, we have an undergraduate research internship scheme where students work alongside our professors, not only gaining advanced methodological and laboratory skills, but also getting a chance to demystify the research culture and open up further research study as an option. More prosaically, I really do not expect to see our practical BSc sport therapy going on to a mooc any day soon.

For me, the answer is Customised Global Collaborative Environments, a concept I have been working on now for the better part of several minutes. In this model, students at universities engage with communities of peers around the world to examine practical and theoretical issues from multiple points of view. But mostly they would help to connect real shared experiences across people, time and space – because in the end that is what education is really about, what computers alone cannot deliver and what student customers, through money alone, cannot buy.

• Professor Patrick McGhee is vice-chancellor of the University of East London

Debate the future of online learning in our live chat, Friday 23 November, 12-2pm at www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/live-q-a


View the original article here

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Do online courses spell the end for the traditional university?

University graduates at Cambridge dressed in robes A thing of the past? University graduates at Cambridge. Photograph: Trigger Image/Alamy

Two years ago, I sat in the back seat of a Toyota Prius in a rooftop car park in California and gripped the door handle as the car roared away from the kerb, headed straight towards the roof's edge and then at the last second sped around a corner without slowing down. There was no one in the driver's seat.

It was the prototype of Google's self-driving car and it felt a bit like being Buck Rogers and catapulted into another century. Later, I listened to Sebastian Thrun, a German-born professor of artificial intelligence at Stanford University, explain how he'd built it, how it had already clocked up 200,000 miles driving around California, and how one day he believed it would mean that there would be no traffic accidents.

A few months later, the New York Times revealed that Thrun was the head of Google's top-secret experimental laboratory Google X, and was developing, among other things, Google Glasses – augmented reality spectacles. And then, a few months after that, I came across Thrun again.

The self-driving car, the glasses, Google X, his prestigious university position – they'd all gone. He'd resigned his tenure from Stanford, and was working just a day a week at Google. He had a new project. Though he didn't call it a project. "It's my mission now," he said. "This is the future. I'm absolutely convinced of it."

The future that Thrun believes in, that has excited him more than self-driving cars, or sci-fi-style gadgets, is education. Specifically, massive online education free to all. The music industry, publishing, transportation, retail – they've all experienced the great technological disruption. Now, says Thrun, it's education's turn.

"It's going to change. There is no doubt about it." Specifically, Thrun believes, higher education is going to change. He has launched Udacity, an online university, and wants to provide mass high quality education for the world. For students in developing countries who can't get it any other way, or for students in the first world, who can but may choose not to. Pay thousands of pounds a year for your education? Or get it free online?

University, of course, is about so much more than the teaching. There's the socialising, of course, or, as we call it here in Britain, drinking. There's the living away from home and learning how to boil water stuff. And there's the all-important sex and catching a social disease stuff. But this is the way disruptions tend to work: they disrupt first, and figure out everything else at some unspecified time later.

Thrun's great revelation came just over a year ago at the same TED conference where he unveiled the self-driving car. "I heard Salman Khan talk about the Khan Academy and I was just blown away by it," he says. "And I still am." Salman Khan, a softly spoken 36-year-old former hedge fund analyst, is the founding father of what's being called the classroom revolution, and is feted by everyone from Bill Gates (who called him "the world's favourite teacher") down.

The Khan Academy, which he set up almost accidentally while tutoring his niece and nephew, now has 3,400 short videos or tutorials, most of which Khan made himself, and 10 million students. "I was blown away by it," says Thrun. "And frankly embarrassed that I was teaching 200 students. And he was teaching millions."

Thrun decided to open up his Stanford artificial intelligence class, CS221, to the world. Anybody could join, he announced. They'd do the same coursework as the Stanford students and at the end of it take the same exam.

CS221 is a demanding, difficult subject. On campus, 200 students enrolled, and Thrun thought they might pull in a few thousand on the web. By the time the course began, 160,000 had signed up. "It absolutely blew my mind," says Thrun. There were students from every single country in the world – bar North Korea. What's more, 23,000 students graduated. And all of the 400 who got top marks were students who'd done it online.

It was, says Thrun, his "wonderland" moment. Having taught a class of 160,000 students, he couldn't go back to being satisfied with 200. "I feel like there's a red pill and a blue pill," Thrun said in a speech a few months later. "I've taken the red pill, and I've seen wonderland. We can really change the world with education."

By the time I sign up to Udacity's beginners' course in computer science, how to build a search engine, 200,000 students have already graduated from it. Although when I say "graduate" I mean they were emailed a certificate. It has more than a touch of Gillian McKeith's PhD about it, though it seems employers are taking it seriously: a bunch of companies, including Google, are sponsoring Udacity courses and regularly cream off the top-scoring students and offer them jobs.

I may have to wait a while for that call, though I'm amazed at how easy Udacity videos are to follow (having tips and advice on search-engine building from Sergey Brin, Google's co-founder, doesn't hurt). Like the Khan Academy, it avoids full-length shots of the lecturer and just shows a doodling hand.

According to Brin, if you have basic programming ability – which we'll all have if we complete the course – and a bit of creativity, "you could come up with an idea that might just change the world". But then that's Silicon Valley for you.

What's intriguing is how this will translate into a British context. Because, of course, when it comes to revolutionising educational access, Britain has led the world. We've had the luxury of open access higher education for so long – more than 40 years now – that we're blasé about it. When the Open University was launched in 1969, it was both radical and democratic. It came about because of improvements in technology – television – and it's been at the forefront of educational innovation ever since. It has free content – on OpenLearn and iTunesU. But at its heart, it's no longer radically democratic. From this year, fees are £5,000.

In America, Thrun is not the only one to have taken the pills. A year on from the Stanford experiment, and the world of higher education and the future of universities is completely different. Thrun's wasn't the only class to go online last autumn. Two of his computer science colleagues, Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller, also took part, with equally mind-blowing results. They too have set up a website, Coursera. And while Udacity is developing its own courses, Coursera is forming partnerships with universities to offer existing ones. When I met Koller in July, shortly after the website's launch, four universities had signed up – Stanford, Princeton, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Just four months later, it has 33 partner universities, 1.8 million students and is having venture capital thrown at it – $16m (£10m) in the first round. And it doesn't stop there. It's pretty remarkable that Coursera and Udacity were spun out of the same university, but also the same department (Thrun and Koller still supervise a PhD student together). And they have the dynamic entrepreneurial change-the-world quality that characterise the greatest and most successful Silicon Valley startups.

"We had a million users faster than Facebook, faster than Instagram," says Koller. "This is a wholesale change in the educational ecosystem."

But they're not alone. Over at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Anant Argarwal, another professor of computer science, who also cites Khan as his inspiration (and who was, in a neat twist, once his student), has launched edX, featuring content from MIT, Harvard, Berkeley and the University of Texas System.

Argarwal is not a man prone to understatement. This, he says, is the revolution. "It's going to reinvent education. It's going to transform universities. It's going to democratise education on a global scale. It's the biggest innovation to happen in education for 200 years." The last major one, he says, was "probably the invention of the pencil". In a decade, he's hoping to reach a billion students across the globe. "We've got 400,000 in four months with no marketing, so I don't think it's unrealistic."

More than 155,000 students took the first course he taught, including a whole class of children in Mongolia. "That was amazing!" says Argarwal. "And we discovered a protégé. One of his students, Batthushig, got a perfect score. He's a high school student. I can't overstate how hard this course was. If I took it today, I wouldn't get a perfect score. We're encouraging him to apply to MIT." This is the year, Argarwal says, that everything has changed. There's no going back. "This is the year of disruption."

A month ago, I signed up for one of the Coursera courses: an introduction to genetics and evolution, taught by Mohamed Noor, a professor at Duke University. Unlike Udacity's, Coursera's courses have a start date and run to a timetable. I quite fancied a University of Pennsylvania course on modern poetry but it had already started. This one was 10 weeks long, would feature "multiple mini-videos roughly 10-15 minutes in length", each of which would contain a number of quizzes, and there would also be three tests and a final exam.

It's just me, Noor, and my 36,000 classmates. We're from everywhere: Kazakhstan, Manila, Donetsk, Iraq. Even Middlesbrough. And while I watch the first videos and enjoy Noor's smiley enthusiasm, I'm not blown away.

They're just videos of lectures, really. There's coursework to do, but I am a journalist. I am impervious to a deadline until the cold sweat of impending catastrophe is upon me. I ignore it. And it's a week or so later when I go back and check out the class forum.

And that's when I have my being-blown-away moment. The traffic is astonishing. There are thousands of people asking – and answering – questions about dominant mutations and recombination. And study groups had spontaneously grown up: a Colombian one, a Brazilian one, a Russian one. There's one on Skype, and some even in real life too. And they're so diligent! If you are a vaguely disillusioned teacher, or know one, send them to Coursera: these are people who just want to learn.

Four weeks in, Noor announces that he's organising a Google hangout: it's where a limited number of people can talk via their webcams. But it's scheduled for 1am GMT on Sunday morning. I go to sleep instead. However I do watch the YouTube video of it the next day and it's fascinating viewing. Despite the time, Richard Herring, a train driver from Sheffield, is there, bright and alert and wanting to tell Noor how much he's enjoying the course.

"Richard!" says Noor. "Nice to meet you! Your posts are amazing. I often find that before I have a chance to go in and answer a question, somebody else has already answered it, and it's often Richard. Thank you."

"I just love science," says Richard. "I was never any good at school, but I've just picked it up along the way. It's a brilliant course. To get something like this without paying anything is marvellous. I'm loving it."

So is Sara Groborz, a graphic designer who was born in Poland but now lives in Britain. And then there's Naresh Ramesh, from Chennai, who's studying for a degree in biotechnology, and Maria, who lives in the US and is using the course to teach her students in a juvenile correction institute. Aline, a high school student in El Salvador, comes on. She took the course, she says, because she goes to a Catholic school where they don't teach evolution. "And you're the best teacher I've ever had!" she tells Noor.

How gratifying must it be to be a teacher on one of these courses? When I catch up by email with Noor the next day, he writes. "I'm absolutely LOVING it!" By phone, he says it's one of the most exciting things he's ever done.

What's more, it means that next semester he's going to be able to "flip the classroom". This is a concept that Khan has popularised and shown to be successful: students do the coursework at home by watching the videos, and then the homework in class, where they can discuss the problems with the instructor.

There are still so many issues to figure out with online education. Not least the fact that you don't get a degree out of it, although a university in the US has just announced that it will issue credit for it. At the moment, most people are doing courses for the sake of simply learning new stuff. "And a certificate, basically a pdf, which says this person may or may not be who they say they are," says Noor.

And while computers are excellent at grading maths questions, they're really much less hot at marking English literature essays. There's a preponderance of scientific and technical subjects, but the number of humanties courses is increasing with what Koller says is "surprisingly successful" peer assessment techniques. "It can't replace a one-to-one feedback from an expert in the field, but with the right guidance, peer assessment and crowd-sourcing really does work."

And in terms of content, the course I'm doing is pretty much the same as the one Noor's students take. At Duke, they have more interaction, and a hands-on lab environment, but they are also charged $40,000 a year for the privilege.

It's a lot of money. And it's this, that makes Udacity's and Coursera's and edX's courses so potentially groundbreaking. At the moment, they're all free. And while none of them can compete with traditional degrees, almost every other industry knows what happens when you give teenagers the choice between paying a lot of money for something or getting it for nothing.

Of course, education isn't quite an industry, but it is a business, or as Matt Grist, an education analyst from the thinktank Demos tells me, "a market", although he immediately apologises for saying this. "I know. It's terrible. That's the way we talk about it these days. I don't really like it, but I do it. But it is a market. And universities are high-powered businesses with massive turnovers. Some of the best institutions in Britain are global players these days."

Grist has been looking at the funding model of British universities, and sees trouble ahead. The massive rise in fees this year is just the start of it. "We've set off down this road now, and if you create competition and a market for universities, I think you're going to have to go further." He foresees the best universities becoming vastly more expensive, and the cheaper, more vocational ones "holding up". "It's the middle-tier, 1960s campus ones that I think are going to struggle."

When I ask Koller why education has suddenly become the new tech miracle baby, she describes it as "the perfect storm. It's like hurricane Sandy, all these things have come together at the same time. There's an enormous global need for high quality education. And yet it's becoming increasingly unaffordable. And at the same time, we have technological advances that make it possible to provide it at very low marginal cost."

And, in Britain, the storm is perhaps even more perfect. This is all happening at precisely the moment that students are having to pay up to £9,000 a year in fees and being forced to take on unprecedented levels of debt.

Students, whether they like it or not, have been turned into consumers. Education in Britain has, until now, been a very pure abstraction, a concept untainted by ideas of the market or value. But that, inevitably, is now changing. University applications by UK-born students this year were down almost 8%. "Though the number who turned up was much lower than that," Peter Lampl, the founder of the Sutton Trust, tells me. "They were 15% down."

The trust champions social mobility and nothing accelerates that more than university. "That's why we're so keen on it," says Lampl. "We're monitoring the situation. We don't know what the true impact of the fees will be yet. Or what the impact of coming out of university with £50,000 worth of debt will have on the rest of your life. "Will it delay you buying a house? Or starting a family? People compare it to the States, but in America one third of graduates have no debt, and two-thirds have an average of $25,000. This is on a completely different scale."

And it's amid this uncertainty and this market pressure that these massive open online courses – or Moocs as they're known in the jargon – may well come to play a role. There are so many intangible benefits to going to university. "I learned as much if not more from my fellow students than I did from the lectures," says Lampl. But they're the things – making life-long friends, joining a society, learning how to operate a washing machine – that are free. It's the education bit that's the expensive part. But what Udacity and the rest are showing is that it doesn't necessarily have to be."

The first British university to join the fray is Edinburgh. It's done a deal with Coursera and from January, will offer six courses, for which 100,000 students have already signed up. Or, to put this in context, four times as many undergraduates as are currently at the university.

It's an experiment, says Jeff Hayward, the vice-principal, a way of trying out new types of teaching "I'll be happy if we break even." At the moment Coursera doesn't charge students to receive a certificate of completion, but at some point it's likely to, and when it does, Edinburgh will get a cut.

But then Edinburgh already has an online model. More than 2,000 students studying for a masters at the university aren't anywhere near it; they're online. "And within a few years, we're ramping that up to 10,000," says Hayward.

For undergraduates, on the other hand, study is not really the point of university, or at least not the whole point. I know a student at Edinburgh called Hannah. "Do you have any lectures tomorrow?" I text her. "Only philosophy at 9am," she texts back. "So obviously I'm not going to that."

She's an example of someone who would be quite happy to pay half the fees, and do some of the lectures online. "God yes. Some of the lecturers are so crap, anyway. We had a tutorial group the other day, and he just sat there and read the paper and told us to get on with it."

Max Crema, the vice-president of the student union, tells me that he's already used online lectures from MIT to supplement his course. "Though that may be because I'm a nerd," he concedes. "The problem with lectures is that they are about 300 years out of date. They date back to the time when universities only had one book. That's why you still have academic positions called readers."

I trot off to one of them, an actual lecture in an actual lecture theatre, the old anatomy theatre, a steeply raked auditorium that's been in use since the 19th century when a dissecting table used to hold centre stage, whereas today there's just Mayank Dutia, professor of systems neurophysiology, talking about the inner ear.

He's one of the first academics signed up to co-deliver one of the Coursera courses come January, although he defends the real-life version too: "Universities are special places. You can't do what we do online. There's something very special in being taught by a world leader in the field. Or having a conversation with someone who's worked on a subject their whole lives. There's no substitute for this."

There isn't. But what the new websites are doing is raising questions about what a university is and what it's for. And how to pay for it. "Higher education is changing," says Hayward. "How do we fund mass global education? There are agonies all over the world about this question."

There are. And there's no doubting that this is something of a turning point. But it may have an impact closer to home too. Argarwal sees a future in which universities may offer "blended" models: a mixture of real-life and online teaching.

Coursera has already struck its first licensing deal. Antioch College, a small liberal arts institution in Ohio, has signed an agreement under which it will take content from Duke University and the University of Pennsylvania. And a startup called the Minerva Project is attempting to set up an online Ivy League university, and is going to encourage its students to live together in "dorm clusters" so that they'll benefit from the social aspects of university life. Seeing how the students on Coursera and Udacity organise themselves, it's not impossible to see how in the future, students could cluster together and take their courses online together. For free.

There's so much at stake. Not least the economies of dozens of smallish British cities, the "second-tier" universities that Matt Grist of Demos foresees could struggle in the brave new free education market world.

At Edinburgh, fees are having an effect – applications are down – but "most students seem to see it as mañana money," says Jeff Hayward. "It's still hypothetical at the moment."

But this is the first year of £9,000 fees. An English student at Edinburgh (it's free for Scottish students), where courses are four years, is looking at £36,000 of debt just for tuition. And maybe another £30,000 of living expenses on top of that.

These websites are barely months old. They're still figuring out the basics. Universities aren't going anywhere just yet. But who knows what they'll look like in 10 years' time? A decade ago, I thought newspapers would be here for ever. That nothing could replace a book. And that KITT, David Hasselhoff's self-driving car in Knight Rider was nothing more than a work of fantasy.

"I was on Richard Dawkins's website and I read about the course - introduction to genetics and evolution. I looked it up and saw it was being offered by a really good university, Duke, and I thought, what's the catch? And there isn't one. It's marvellous. I can't believe it's available for free. I'm absolutely loving it.

"The only qualification I've got is a bronze certificate in swimming. I left school with no qualifications, nothing. But I got interested in philosophy and then science and I just love learning about things. I've always got a book in my hand. What's great about the course is that you can pause it, and rewind, and rewatch it until you get the hang of it. I used to be a steelworker where you had to learn a lot of new things, and I find I have to keep at it, and then it eventually clicks.

"I actually paid for a home tutor a few years ago to teach me calculus and I did send off for a prospectus from the Open University, but it was too expensive. For me, it's not about getting a qualification, it's for the sake of learning. I'm really enjoying the forum. The way that Professor Noor interacts with it and that there are students from all over the world, some of them with a whole load of letters after their name. I just love the environment. I don't have that at work – it's a very northern, working class sort of place, so I'm just not pushed in that direction.

"I've already signed up to a whole load of other courses: I've enrolled on a philosophy one, and I'm going to brush up on my algebra, and there's a cell biology one which I think will be an interesting extension to this." CC


View the original article here

Monday, October 8, 2012

Forget the business case, open online courses are about learning

Forget the business case, open online courses are about learning Massive Online Open Courses are not the solution to education in the 21st century - but they do offer something new. Photograph: Kim Hong-Ji/REUTERS

Ever since MITx was unveiled last December, futurists have been predicting what it might all mean for higher education. They're calling it "The Great Disruption", a brand name worthy of Nostradamus. The Globe and Mail says it's about time. The Atlantic is envisioning a post-campus America.

For those of us actually enrolled in Massive Open Online Courses, though – or those like me who have enlisted both to teach and learn within these experimental course environments – this great disruption feels more like an augmentation than anything else.

I think higher education has something to learn from the experiences that I – and learners like me, merging non-traditional avenues with formalised classroom experiences – are engaging in. Those of us who have chosen graduate studies in spite of the much-lamented death of the tenure-track professoriate have little reason to assume that we will have any sort of protected or privileged place in the academy's next incarnation.

Yet here we are. We are, at least for the moment, part of the system. But many of us are wary of being fully subsumed into it, because we've been cautioned against betting the farm on that tenure path. So we keep a foot outside the tower, seeking out alternative paths to augment our learning and research; we are keeping options open.

Yet neither do we necessarily reject the academy. For myself, I don't belong to the Do It Yourself University camp that sometimes suggests that Moocs and unstructured online network participation are the solution to education in the 21st century.

Our world relies too heavily on credentials for me to believe that the #change11 (an introductory course about instructional technology for researchers) experience would remain as open as it is, if it were suddenly forced to carry the burden of standards that falls, rightly or wrongly, on formalised higher education. The logic that drives open online credentialing experiments is, thus far, only experimental.

Moocs do disrupt business as usual, yes. Those of us in the #change11 Mooc are engaged in the course at no cost, and nobody except us is holding our learning or performance to any particular external standards. Unlike MITx, the 36 week #change11 course offers no credential. These factors all make it a significantly different experience from studying at my bricks-and-mortar university.

What #change11 gives me, though, is access to a multitude of semi-organised ideas and expert facilitators, plus a semi-coherent network of peers to work through the weeks with. That network remains largely stable even as topics and facilitators rotate weekly.

It is this participatory element – the being part of a large, distributed network of people from varied backgrounds, focusing on the same topic – that enables open online experiences to offer value, even to those of us already studying in conventional institutions. That, and the speed and flexibility inherent in networked learning.

In a Google-able culture replete with neo-liberal demands for reform, efficiency, and innovation, Moocs help those of us interested in emergent ideas participate in a public learning experience that is otherwise not really available by conventional means.

As I forge ahead with my own research, the lack of fit between learning and success on academic terms and those that social media rewards and reinforces become increasingly apparent. Journal publications lag years behind blog posts in my area of specialisation. The theory that guides my research seldom addresses the online contexts in which I'm trying to apply it. But my Mooc peers and facilitators do. And so I apply the ideas shaped by traditional academic environments to those shared in distributed digital environments.

The Mooc augments my PhD studies by making it possible for me to be a public thinker and learner; by giving me up-to-the-minute access to the conversations shaping and driving my field, and the opportunity to participate in these conversations. They are available on the wider internet, certainly. But Moocs help curate and cohere them, and also overtly create them. Moocs don't just bring disparate networks and opportunities into focus; they carve out explicit teaching and learning spaces within the information overload of contemporary social media.

Will these type of practice ultimately have an impact of the teaching and learning spaces of traditional institutions? I hope so. But not necessarily in the ways heralded by media.

Too often, Moocs – particularly the emergent big-name university offerings that have essentially harnessed the capacity of open online learning and scaled it – are written about primarily as dramatic new business models.

It's true that there's potential in that direction. And Sebastian Thrun and others seem intent on mining it, while all of us watch breathlessly.

But that market lens on massive open coursework misses one of the central elements of the great disruption: education is not solely a business, or a credential-machine. It's also about learning.

And with Moocs, those of us acculturated to academia have the opportunity to learn new, responsive, participatory ways of fostering public knowledge, both inside and outside of traditional institutions. The disruption may be profound, certainly. But so may be the possibilities.

Bonnie Stewart is a PhD student at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. Her research explores social media identity and its implications for higher education. She blogs ideas at http://theory.cribchronicles.com and identity and parenthood at http://cribchronicles.com. Find her on Twitter at @bonstewart.


View the original article here

Top universities join free online teaching platform

student in lecture theatre Coursera and similar online offerings could mean the end of large lecture theatres as universities put more emphasis on one-to-one teaching. Photograph: Image Source /Rex Features

Twelve leading universities in the US and Europe have joined an internet platform created by two Stanford University scientists which provides free online access to classes designed by academics at elite institutions.

The move, announced on Tuesday, marks a significant expansion of online university teaching. Observers say it heralds a shakeup of the classic lecture theatre model.

The new participants in Coursera, which combines online lectures with assignments to be submitted, include the California Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, and University of California, San Francisco in the US, as well as Edinburgh University and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne.

Caltech and the University of Pennsylvania have also announced a combined $3.7m (£2.4m) investment in Coursera.

Coursera already offers classes from Princeton, the University of Michigan, Stanford, University of California, Berkeley and the University of Pennsylvania.

The 12 universities joining the platform will offer dozens of new courses in the arts, computer science, health, mathematics, history, literature and other disciplines.

The classes offered by Coursera do not count as credit towards degrees at the universities involved, but online students receive certificates for completing their studies.

Andrew Ng, the Stanford academic who co-founded Coursera with Daphne Koller, said the move gave students "greater access than ever before to the world's foremost subject-matter experts".

Koller said: "We're fortunate to have the support of these highly respected academic institutions as we move toward our shared goal of providing a high-quality education to everyone around the world."

Many universities already offer online lectures and some – notably the Open University – offer qualifications through distance learning. But observers say the rise of Coursera and similar online offerings marks a shift in the balance of power in higher education.

Mike Boxall, of the management consultancy PA Consulting, compared the development to the changes that have swept the media and music industry. "The interesting thing is that it effectively marks the provision of knowledge as a free good, which accords with young people's expectations. Now you've got the industry saying, we have to protect our offer – that offer is not the key to the library door – they have to provide something around that, the ability to use and interact with that knowledge."

The growth in online learning is likely to push universities towards greater emphasis on one-to-one tuition and other interaction with students, Boxall said. "What does that mean for 500-seat lecture theatres? It's amazing that universities are still building big lecture theatres – there's a huge wave of building across the university world. They're not rethinking that environment."

It is also a sign of the untapped demand for higher education. In recent years, there has been keen interest from venture capital in private for-profit higher education providers.

A consortium including Goldman Sachs owns the US private HE provider Education Management Corporation, while Montagu private equity recently acquired the College of Law, the UK's biggest law school, for £200m.

Boxall said: "There is huge latent demand. Public higher education is under pressure but the bigger market for learning is just vast."

Coursera's business model has not been made public, but learners pay for the certificates that mark completion of their courses – a revenue stream shared with the universities. One investor has suggested the business could profit from students opting in to premium services.

Jeff Haywood, vice-principal at Edinburgh University, said his institution was adopting a breakeven model. The platform serves as a shop window for universities; a free course with no entry qualifications offers students a way of sampling a traditional university education. It also offers the universities a chance to innovate, Haywood said. "There's an ability to experiment at a scale that we can't do on campus – you can't put together a class of 20,000 students on campus. If we're able to get some confidence that we can do automated large-scale assessment, on computers, we may do more of that and release our academic team to do higher value-added teaching."

An internet-based model which can pick the best courses from around the world puts greater pressure on universities to be distinctive; one of the courses Edinburgh will offer is in artificial intelligence, for which it has an international reputation.

Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, which represents leading universities including Oxbridge and Edinburgh, said: "Online technologies provide huge opportunities for the dissemination of knowledge, and our universities are continuing to take advantage by, for example, putting lectures online through iTunes U and YouTube, or by making much of our research open access. Russell Group universities have always been at the forefront of online innovations, and we are keen to exploit this further."


View the original article here

Friday, September 21, 2012

Forget the business case, open online courses are about learning

Forget the business case, open online courses are about learning Massive Online Open Courses are not the solution to education in the 21st century - but they do offer something new. Photograph: Kim Hong-Ji/REUTERS

Ever since MITx was unveiled last December, futurists have been predicting what it might all mean for higher education. They're calling it "The Great Disruption", a brand name worthy of Nostradamus. The Globe and Mail says it's about time. The Atlantic is envisioning a post-campus America.

For those of us actually enrolled in Massive Open Online Courses, though – or those like me who have enlisted both to teach and learn within these experimental course environments – this great disruption feels more like an augmentation than anything else.

I think higher education has something to learn from the experiences that I – and learners like me, merging non-traditional avenues with formalised classroom experiences – are engaging in. Those of us who have chosen graduate studies in spite of the much-lamented death of the tenure-track professoriate have little reason to assume that we will have any sort of protected or privileged place in the academy's next incarnation.

Yet here we are. We are, at least for the moment, part of the system. But many of us are wary of being fully subsumed into it, because we've been cautioned against betting the farm on that tenure path. So we keep a foot outside the tower, seeking out alternative paths to augment our learning and research; we are keeping options open.

Yet neither do we necessarily reject the academy. For myself, I don't belong to the Do It Yourself University camp that sometimes suggests that Moocs and unstructured online network participation are the solution to education in the 21st century.

Our world relies too heavily on credentials for me to believe that the #change11 (an introductory course about instructional technology for researchers) experience would remain as open as it is, if it were suddenly forced to carry the burden of standards that falls, rightly or wrongly, on formalised higher education. The logic that drives open online credentialing experiments is, thus far, only experimental.

Moocs do disrupt business as usual, yes. Those of us in the #change11 Mooc are engaged in the course at no cost, and nobody except us is holding our learning or performance to any particular external standards. Unlike MITx, the 36 week #change11 course offers no credential. These factors all make it a significantly different experience from studying at my bricks-and-mortar university.

What #change11 gives me, though, is access to a multitude of semi-organised ideas and expert facilitators, plus a semi-coherent network of peers to work through the weeks with. That network remains largely stable even as topics and facilitators rotate weekly.

It is this participatory element – the being part of a large, distributed network of people from varied backgrounds, focusing on the same topic – that enables open online experiences to offer value, even to those of us already studying in conventional institutions. That, and the speed and flexibility inherent in networked learning.

In a Google-able culture replete with neo-liberal demands for reform, efficiency, and innovation, Moocs help those of us interested in emergent ideas participate in a public learning experience that is otherwise not really available by conventional means.

As I forge ahead with my own research, the lack of fit between learning and success on academic terms and those that social media rewards and reinforces become increasingly apparent. Journal publications lag years behind blog posts in my area of specialisation. The theory that guides my research seldom addresses the online contexts in which I'm trying to apply it. But my Mooc peers and facilitators do. And so I apply the ideas shaped by traditional academic environments to those shared in distributed digital environments.

The Mooc augments my PhD studies by making it possible for me to be a public thinker and learner; by giving me up-to-the-minute access to the conversations shaping and driving my field, and the opportunity to participate in these conversations. They are available on the wider internet, certainly. But Moocs help curate and cohere them, and also overtly create them. Moocs don't just bring disparate networks and opportunities into focus; they carve out explicit teaching and learning spaces within the information overload of contemporary social media.

Will these type of practice ultimately have an impact of the teaching and learning spaces of traditional institutions? I hope so. But not necessarily in the ways heralded by media.

Too often, Moocs – particularly the emergent big-name university offerings that have essentially harnessed the capacity of open online learning and scaled it – are written about primarily as dramatic new business models.

It's true that there's potential in that direction. And Sebastian Thrun and others seem intent on mining it, while all of us watch breathlessly.

But that market lens on massive open coursework misses one of the central elements of the great disruption: education is not solely a business, or a credential-machine. It's also about learning.

And with Moocs, those of us acculturated to academia have the opportunity to learn new, responsive, participatory ways of fostering public knowledge, both inside and outside of traditional institutions. The disruption may be profound, certainly. But so may be the possibilities.

Bonnie Stewart is a PhD student at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. Her research explores social media identity and its implications for higher education. She blogs ideas at http://theory.cribchronicles.com and identity and parenthood at http://cribchronicles.com. Find her on Twitter at @bonstewart.


View the original article here

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Top universities join free online teaching platform

student in lecture theatre Coursera and similar online offerings could mean the end of large lecture theatres as universities put more emphasis on one-to-one teaching. Photograph: Image Source /Rex Features

Twelve leading universities in the US and Europe have joined an internet platform created by two Stanford University scientists which provides free online access to classes designed by academics at elite institutions.

The move, announced on Tuesday, marks a significant expansion of online university teaching. Observers say it heralds a shakeup of the classic lecture theatre model.

The new participants in Coursera, which combines online lectures with assignments to be submitted, include the California Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, and University of California, San Francisco in the US, as well as Edinburgh University and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne.

Caltech and the University of Pennsylvania have also announced a combined $3.7m (£2.4m) investment in Coursera.

Coursera already offers classes from Princeton, the University of Michigan, Stanford, University of California, Berkeley and the University of Pennsylvania.

The 12 universities joining the platform will offer dozens of new courses in the arts, computer science, health, mathematics, history, literature and other disciplines.

The classes offered by Coursera do not count as credit towards degrees at the universities involved, but online students receive certificates for completing their studies.

Andrew Ng, the Stanford academic who co-founded Coursera with Daphne Koller, said the move gave students "greater access than ever before to the world's foremost subject-matter experts".

Koller said: "We're fortunate to have the support of these highly respected academic institutions as we move toward our shared goal of providing a high-quality education to everyone around the world."

Many universities already offer online lectures and some – notably the Open University – offer qualifications through distance learning. But observers say the rise of Coursera and similar online offerings marks a shift in the balance of power in higher education.

Mike Boxall, of the management consultancy PA Consulting, compared the development to the changes that have swept the media and music industry. "The interesting thing is that it effectively marks the provision of knowledge as a free good, which accords with young people's expectations. Now you've got the industry saying, we have to protect our offer – that offer is not the key to the library door – they have to provide something around that, the ability to use and interact with that knowledge."

The growth in online learning is likely to push universities towards greater emphasis on one-to-one tuition and other interaction with students, Boxall said. "What does that mean for 500-seat lecture theatres? It's amazing that universities are still building big lecture theatres – there's a huge wave of building across the university world. They're not rethinking that environment."

It is also a sign of the untapped demand for higher education. In recent years, there has been keen interest from venture capital in private for-profit higher education providers.

A consortium including Goldman Sachs owns the US private HE provider Education Management Corporation, while Montagu private equity recently acquired the College of Law, the UK's biggest law school, for £200m.

Boxall said: "There is huge latent demand. Public higher education is under pressure but the bigger market for learning is just vast."

Coursera's business model has not been made public, but learners pay for the certificates that mark completion of their courses – a revenue stream shared with the universities. One investor has suggested the business could profit from students opting in to premium services.

Jeff Haywood, vice-principal at Edinburgh University, said his institution was adopting a breakeven model. The platform serves as a shop window for universities; a free course with no entry qualifications offers students a way of sampling a traditional university education. It also offers the universities a chance to innovate, Haywood said. "There's an ability to experiment at a scale that we can't do on campus – you can't put together a class of 20,000 students on campus. If we're able to get some confidence that we can do automated large-scale assessment, on computers, we may do more of that and release our academic team to do higher value-added teaching."

An internet-based model which can pick the best courses from around the world puts greater pressure on universities to be distinctive; one of the courses Edinburgh will offer is in artificial intelligence, for which it has an international reputation.

Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, which represents leading universities including Oxbridge and Edinburgh, said: "Online technologies provide huge opportunities for the dissemination of knowledge, and our universities are continuing to take advantage by, for example, putting lectures online through iTunes U and YouTube, or by making much of our research open access. Russell Group universities have always been at the forefront of online innovations, and we are keen to exploit this further."


View the original article here