EduGeek Journal

Proud Sponsor of Your Future

Friday, August 29, 2014 (1:27 pm)

Matt CrosslinSymphony or Cacophony? Cracking the Code of Tool Selection in MOOCs

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

One of the bigger struggles with modern day education is tool selection. There are so many good tools that do such similar things that everyone from instructors to CIOs are trying to figure out the secret formula for how many are too few to offer and how many are too many to manage. Some schools apply the “all your eggs in one basket” approach, forcing everything into one mega tool like Blackboard. Others advocate no restrictions, so that learners will be faced with so many tools that they get lost and confused.

Having all your eggs in one basket is nice from a bottom line perspective, but not very realistic for the world we live in since one instrument virtuoso are less in demand. However, Putting too many options in one course can overwhelm everyone from the instructor to the students to the support staff to, well… everyone with a hand in the game. A balance needs to be struck so that your diverse collection of instruments works together as a symphony but avoids the chaos of cacophony.

As we are looking at the dual layer MOOC design, the number of tools we would like to use is also ballooning. Some have been around for a while, some are newer, others are being tested out in this course. But they all seem to play a vital role, so how do we get the right amount that doesn’t overwhelm the students, but still gives them freedom to use what is most meaningful to them?

We could easily just say that all students will use Tableau, WordPress, and EdX for everything…. but that may not end up being what they will use after the class if over, and therefore end up rather useless to them.

We could also just as easily list a ton of tools and link to tutorials, but that would overwhelm many students and encourage more to drop out.

The solution is probably somewhere in the middle – where we offer enough tools to get everything accomplished in the course (assuring, of course, that we are focusing on teaching how to accomplish certain tasks over just focusing on the software) while helping learners to focus in on the tools they need at that given moment.

This is where Nicolas Cage and National Treasure comes in. Cage’s character is trying to use multiple tools to crack a code to find a treasure, basically. But in one scene there are so many possibilities out there that the clue seemed like useless blabber. Fast forward a few scenes and Cage’s figures out that the pair of older glasses would change what he saw on the piece of paper as he changed lenses:


Learners in the multiple pathways/dual layer MOOC will be changing technology filters as they go through the course to accomplish different tasks. There will be many more “lenses” than in the glasses pictured above, each one helping them see a different aspect of learning analytics. Our mission is to organize and tie the various technology filters together in a seamless fashion.

It would almost be nice if we could embed an UrbanSpoon slot-machine like app into the weekly/daily email communication. Learners select the layer they are in (xMOOC or cMOOC), the analytics tool for the week (Tableau, Gephi, RapidMiner, or LightSIDE), and the activity they are working on and they get a custom set of instructions for the week.

MOOC Spoon

Probably a bit beyond what we have time for, but our design will need to help learners focus on just the tools that they need for the time being.

In a general sense, the weekly flow of tools could look something like this:


Learners would receive the weekly update which guides them to the tools they need to focus on (even though all tools can be used as secondary if needed). The learners then use these tools to go through the zone of proximal development (ZPD) surrounding the weekly main concept. The learning analytics tools are a part of the support for traversing the ZPD. Data collection tools will collect data to guide the next weekly email, as well as student work to highlight in the same email. These weekly (or maybe even daily) communication pieces are important in keeping students in different pathways aware of everything that is happening across the class, and will hopefully even draw some into trying different pathways.

Of course, this is a simplistic look at the process. Or maybe more of a road map for design. The time consuming part will be in building a unified user experience. I’m a fan of the way ds106 created a handbook for this purpose – kind of a combination how-to and FAQ space complete with quick start guide even. They cracked the code for turning their particularly large set of lenses / tools into a symphony quite nicely, and hopefully we can do the same.

(Note: ProSolo is a toll in development that, for lack of better words, serves as a place to collect various streams of content that learners create in their own space. I have been watching the developments with Known that Jim Groom has blogged about, and I like where they are going with that. ProSolo seems to have some similarities with Known on the hub side of things. I’m not sure whether it will receive input from a POSSE (Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere) service.)


Thursday, August 28, 2014 (11:41 am)

Matt CrosslinTheoretical Flow of Heutagogy in MOOCs

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

So to continue the examination of the multiple pathways MOOC (aka “dual-layer”), I want to pull back a minute and look at the overall flow of the course from a different (but familiar) perspective.

One of the ways I think we are falling flat in MOOCs (and to be honest, all forms of courses) is in the process of introducing the course and maintaining an overall vision. A colleague of mine often says “without vision, the people perish!” What this basically means if that people don’t have a good reason to get pumped up about what they are doing, they give up. Another way of looking at this is: “[insert your topic here]: So What?!?!”

Introductory sections and goals are good components to have, but they aren’t enough to bring vision to all learners (some will be self-motivated, of course). In traditional courses, the “So what?” can easily be answered with “I paid for it, its required, it helps my degree plan, so good enough!” While that is not the best vision, it usually fills the gap. So a bit of problem there, but with a stop gap. But in open classes? People need a better answer to “so what?” than that (because they can drop out with no loss) or even any answer, period.

And not because they aren’t necessarily interested or motivated. They just need some fuel to keep their self-motivation fires burning when the pressures of life press in to the time needed for self-selected course.

This is the beginning of the process of Heutagogy, which will continue into the next issue to examine.

One of the major criticisms of some college programs is that they are focusing too much on content and not enough on marketable skills. In any technology-related field, this causes problems when that content goes obsolete. For example, computer programming degrees may teach, say, “Intro to PHP” and “Advanced PHP” in the sophomore year – typically with a textbook that is already a few years old. However, three years later when those students graduate, that PHP has gone thorough several new versions, while many companies have moved on to Ruby on Rails. So the learners panic because they realize “I need a class on the new version of PHP and Ruby on Rails! But I am out of college!”

What this does is create a reliance on the instructor as knowledge dispenser and the class as “specific skill set trainer.” What is missing is teaching learners how to learn (aka heutagogy) instead of how to consume content from an expert (instructivism).

At the very beginning, computer programming college degrees should focus on teaching students how to figure out any programming language. Just look at basic concepts, theories, and then several method out there. Because different learners will be, well, different - they will need to figure out if they need Dummies books or online tutorials or to work alone or to follow an expert or whatever it means. Once they have their own process down, the rest of the program should focus on honing these self-directed learning skills by letting learners loose on whatever the language de jour is. But the classes should not be called “Advanced Java” or what ever it may be, but “Solving Advanced Problems Using New Languages” or something like that. Since changing course titles and textbooks is very difficult to accomplish quickly, just make the titlesmore open from the beginning to allow for students to pursue more up-to-date and/or relevant content. Or just go all crazy and allow for more advanced open learning.

Pulling this altogether, I would look at a theoretical flow of content like this (based on data analytics, the current topic of a the multiple pathways MOOC):

1) Give learners vision (and let the vision frame the rest of the class). Have all instructors answer the “Data Analytics: So What?” in a short video of a few minutes. And then I would say just slam the learners into group work. Have all learners answer this question before class even starts:

If someone came up to you on the streets and said “Data Analytics: So What?”, my answer would be:
a) adequate to inspiring
b) some what uncertain to non-existent

Then place all learners into groups of five with about 1-2 A’s and 304 B’s. Let those who are already a bit advanced envision the others.

2) Go through the introduction, but the first major topic should be how to identify and follow the major thought leaders and organization in Data Analytics. Once learners connect with these leaders, they have taken their first step to becoming lifelong learners about Data Analytics rather than short-term consumers of expert knowledge that need to keep coming back to the same expert fountains in order to learn and grow. We often leave this step to the end or scatter it as optional content throughout the material, but I think in today’s society this is not adequate. Start off with learning how to find the updated thought on data analytics and let learners begin to find the new ideas and products from the very beginning of class.

3) Dive into the intro material, but expand it to include teaching the basics of how to do Data Analytics in all situations, scenarios, software environments, etc. Teach learners to know how to learn for themselves what to do, not just follow the steps you provide. In data analytics, that would teach them how to analyze the data in general in any program: extracting data, visualizations, network analysis, regressors, etc. Teach them the basics of how to figure out any data analytics tool they come across.

4) Then dive into real life scenarios, problem-based learning, even student centered learning. I know that at times there will be certain functions that only one program does, so I’m not saying avoid any specific instructions. But think of it this way: portions of the specific instructions you teach your learners will be obsolete when the next version that is released. In other cases, many learners will be at an institution that requires one type of software. If you only taught them to figure out the narrative of data using Tableau, and their institution wants them to use Gephi, they may get stuck. But if they learn in general how to look at the narrative of data and then are allowed to choose the tool they use to accomplish this analysis, they might find the course much more meaningful to them as learners.

Of course, I am oversimplifying this idea and real courses will be a mixture of looking at specific functions that only exist in specific places and alongside overarching ideas that can transcend applications. The overall point I am getting at is to focus your design on teaching your learners how to learn about your topic, with the specific tools and processes as examples and case studies rather than the overall focus itself.

As for how to arrange the tools themselves, I want to look at that idea in more detail in a separate post where we will go on a treasure hunt with Nicholas Cage.


Sunday, August 24, 2014 (1:26 pm)

Matt CrosslinDigital Out of Body Experiences

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Ed Tech|User Interface

Ever get crazy ideas about the future of technology? I was pondering some of the new technology that different groups/companies are working on, and had a crazy thought about the future of computer interfaces. It all started with thinking about computers in the 1990s. For those that remember the 1990s, there was something magical about the computers that were coming out then. It was like the displays suddenly leapt well beyond what we saw even in Science Fiction movies. I mean, you could get a decent desktop computer that looked fancier than anything on Star Wars or Star Trek, and they could play CDs, store files (remember having to save everything on a disc? How quaint), connect to other people, play rough videos, etc. You didn’t see a whole lot of that in the movies.

Today we have people working on amazing stuff. Sensors that follow your moves well enough to let you play video games. Using WiFi to see through walls. Immersive heads-up displays. We see some cool stuff in movies today, but I wonder if reality will actually move beyond our current Sci-Fi paradigms of future interfaces into something totally different.

As we increase the ability to quickly detect and map the immediate world around us through cameras, sensors, WiFi signals, sounds, etc – we will soon have the ability to create a photo-realistic digital 3-D recreation in real time. Which sounds cool in itself for, say, recording important events and then re-living them later. Throw those recordings into an immersive Occulus Rift-like helmet and its like you are back there again. But what if you had the helmet on while recording? Since your sensors probably extend a good 100 feet or more, you could realistically “pull away” and rotate the display from your body the same way you spread your fingers across a map on a smart phone to pull out. What this means is that we will probably see the ability to have realistic digital out of body experiences in our life time.

Sounds creepy, but also think of the safety implications. What if you drove this way, and since you can pull back and see around corners, you get in less accidents? You could even start driving your car like a video game with a video game joystick. Same could go for fighter pilots in battle – think of the advantage you could have to see the whole battlefield like a realistic game. Also, imagine public safety – the ability to look through a building for a bomb threat without stepping a foot inside, for instance.

Of course, there are huge privacy concerns with this idea. Would we have to invent a new paint and window films that can block these technologies in order to secure not only government buildings but our own houses? I am sure some solution will present itself.

Of course, we don’t always have to go big. Doctors could use this technology to guide miniature robots all over the human body, or even perform routine work on contagious patients from a safe distance.

Of course, I have been talking about co-located events here, but since we are talking about transferring digital information to a display, that display could technically be anywhere in the world and this “out of body” experience could be transferred over the Internet. Educationally, think of the ways we could change teaching if we could send learners anywhere we want with little physical danger. Historical sites could set up tours online – just create a protocol for streaming your sensors online and people could go all over the place in the middle of class. And not just international trips that are cost-prohibitive in real life – also think trips that are dangerous like inside a volcano or hurricane or to the bottom of the ocean.

Of course, all of this is kind of akin to floating around someplace like a digital ghost that no one can see – which is good in some situations, but not others. But what if we can combine these sensors with holographic projectors to project the virtual visitor as if they were actually there? Collaboration pretty much reaches the level of holodecks. What will that mean for classes when we have this ability? What could we learn about ourselves if we have the ability to re-watch ourselves later from an outsider’s perspective? For all of the fields that involve interaction, what would that mean to be able to replay a whole interaction? What would this mean for role play?

Its kind of creepy and interesting at the same time. But then again, back in the 90s, the idea of sharing personal pictures and personal random thoughts on Facebook was creepy and interesting also. We will see where all of this goes, but I hope people that are working on these technologies are dreaming big enough to work through the creepy and into the interesting.


Friday, August 1, 2014 (9:52 am)

Matt CrosslinThe Disruption That Never Will Be in Education

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Current Events|Open Learning

Don’t get me wrong – change is coming to education, and disruption will be part of it. But all of the comparisons to the music industry are off base, because much of the “disruption caused by mp3s” narrative is a smokescreen from the music industry intended to distract from other questionable activities they are participating in. And also to quote Jim Groom: “Why are we so hell bent on disrupting everything right now?

But let’s start with a historical look at the music industry. If you are old enough, you probably remember seeing this sticker quite often:


When the cassette tape came out, it quickly became a cheap means for creating your own tapes at home. While people like to act like the mp3 created the “unbundling/rebundling” phenomenon, the truth is that it was the mixtape that started it. Many people like to act like all they did was make a personal favorites list from their own collection, but the truth is that most of us used the mixtape to get a bunch of songs we liked from friends so that we wouldn’t have to buy a whole album for one song. Some of us even coordinated music buying with friends and family so that we could get all the songs we wanted for the least amount of money. This led to the rise of the home taping movement along with the music industry creating several PSAs about how this movement was killing their business.

Which, of course, it obviously did not.

So the ability to unbundle and rebundle music is nothing new. Neither is the ability to get free music. The same holds true in other forms of entertainment: people that didn’t want to buy newspapers knew what coffee shops to hit at what time to get a free copy. People set up elaborate systems for trading VHS and Betamax tapes. Or they learned how to tape movies off of broadcast TV once you were allowed to pause recording during commercials. The digital revolution sped this process up and anonymized it considerably, but there were actually other factors that contributed more to the disruption that occurred in the music business. Of course, you rarely hear about these because it exposes a more questionable side to the music business. Not to mention that “home burning” is probably bigger than online piracy:

“It seems the ripping of CDs borrowed from friends and family accounts for almost as much music piracy as online file sharing anyway, which is an interesting discovery. This is something that has been rife since before online piracy music became a mainstream activity.”

Remember what happened when the music industry introduced new physical formats (vinyl to 8-track to cassettes to CD)? Everyone had to spend a ton of money upgrading to the new format, because the new format was in no way compatible to the old one. Most of us had to sit around figuring out which albums we liked the most because we could only upgrade a few. Even after the CD, the industry tried to introduce new formats like Super Audio CDs and MiniDiscs, but none of those caught on. People were still trying to upgrade to CDs and just didn’t bite. But also many people noticed that the early CDs sounded horrible when compared to the new albums recorded for CDs. Remember those first Led Zeppelin CDs? It was obvious they were just dumping old music on the new format without trying to upgrade the sound quality. They weren’t expecting this CD thing to last.

Additionally, think about how flimsy all of those physical formats were. They could break, warp, scratch, crack, stretch, and wear out easily. In addition to the massive amounts of money they made off of making consumers upgrade every few years, they also made a lot of money off of people replacing broken or worn media (even CDs wear out if you play them too much).

Mp3s and cloud storage changed this. Once you get your music digitally apart from the physical media, it can always be compatible with newer formats. Look at how many formats iTunes plays. Some new format comes out? Download the update and keep going. Mp3 player breaks? Just re-download the songs.

There was one area that the digital revolution did obviously disrupt. The one thing that home taping couldn’t deal with was the need to still buy an entire album to just get the songs you wanted. Sure, there were 45s and cassingles and even CD singles, but those just had the one hit song (and a throw away song if that). Usually three of those would equal the cost of a full album, and most hit bands would have at least three hit singles. So most of us just got the album and skipped the process of waiting for singles. MP3s did change that radically, in that you could just buy the songs you like at $1 a pop and skip the rest of the filler. Because, let’s face it, most hit albums are a few good songs that are obvious singles and a bunch of boring filler. But no record company is going to point out how little effort they put into the whole album. So yes, the mp3 did disrupt the business of tricking people into buying a full album of filler in order to get the 2-4 songs that the record company spent actual time and money on developing into hit songs.

This all points to the real disruption in the music business that the industry will never mention. Some of their more lucrative side-effect revenue streams were cut off over night (upgrading old media, replacing damaged media, and buying the full media to just enjoy a small part). These disruptions will not transfer to the education sector until someone invents a way to improve the human brain. Once we “download” education, its not permanent. We will need refreshers. We will need updates. For now at least, we can’t download the new information directly to our brains once the old goes out of date. We will need to constantly learn new information and enforce existing information, so education is still needed in some form and free online content will not change that.

So, in addition to the real music-industry disruption being something that most aren’t focusing on, we also have the issue that those at the top (record companies) are still doing well despite what they are saying. The music industry still made $16.5 billion dollars in 2013. That may be half of what they made 10 years ago, but a lot of that loss can be accounted for through the loss of the “lucrative side-effect revenue streams” I mentioned. And o you really think they laid off any corporate head honchos because of those losses? Doubtful. We do know there are less artists getting signed, less music being produced by older artists, and less newer artists clogging up the airwaves. The people at the top are still making money by squeezing more out of the people at the bottom. Look at all of the hit songs that are “featuring” guest appearances from other artists. How do you increase the sales of a hit song? Get another famous person to guest on that song and all of their fans will also buy the song. Instance 2-for-1 sales bump! Sound familiar?

Of course, this is not isolated to a few colleges. Faculty around the world are reporting being required to do more with less resources and support while upper level administration seems to continue to increase.

Something else to think about. Recent research is showing that people that download the most free content illegally are also the ones that buy the most legal content. Those that already have the service being offered are the main ones that are consuming the free version of it. Sound familiar? Like how most people that take MOOCs already have a college degree?

What this points to is that any disruption that the education industry would go through in common with the music industry has already happened.

So we have a few reality check factors to consider:

  • Unbundling and rebundling is nothing new and existed well before the digital revolution
  • Access to free content also existed well before the digital revolution
  • A lot of the “disruption” that occurred in the music industry is a smoke screen from the music industry itself designed to garner support for current questionable actions as well as hide questionable practices in the past.
  • Much of the actual disruption that happened due to mp3s and digital content can’t really transfer to the education industry due to the education sector being much more complex.
  • The disruptions that can transfer from the music/entertainment industry to the education industry have already happened.

All of this to say that music metaphors need to stop. Changes and disruptions are going to happen (and have been happening for a long time), but it seems we seldom see the people that have a more realistic grasp on the changes that are coming speaking at big educational conferences. This post was originally meant to be a two or three paragraph intro to a blog post called “Ask Not What Disruption Will Do To You, But What You Can Do For the Coming Disruption” – but that will have to wait until next time. We need to stop this focus on disrupting everything now based on a busted music industry model and instead ask how we can guide the changes that are coming to be beneficial for learners and faculty and not the big dogs at the top.


Thursday, July 24, 2014 (10:17 am)

Matt CrosslinIs There a Difference Between xMOOCs and cMOOCs?

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

Recently I have been reading a few different thoughts on the difference between cMOOCs and xMOOCs. Or more specfically, how there is no real difference between the two and the classifications do more harm to the conversation than help. I would respectfully disagree – the differences are real, and they do matter. To ignore the differences would cause more damage in my opinion.

Of course, this has been explained in much better terms by others before – but this is just my attempt to try a different framing mechanism.

A lot of the discussion centers around how there are social activities in xMOOCs as well as guided content in cMOOCs. To me, that’s a non-issue. Social elements do not define cMOOCs, and lack of social elements does not make an xMOOC. Instructor-led content does not define an xMOOC, and lack of content does not define a cMOOC. That is like saying that pizzas and burgers are the same because they both have salt and can be ordered at a fast food restaurant. Sharing some similar characterisitcs does not mean that the ones that they don’t share are not important.

I’m working on a content analysis research project that is looking at what themes would emerge if you analyzed the content of the syllabuses of 30 MOOC courses. The differences between cMOOCs and xMOOCs are quite noticeable. Everyone has sightly different terms for the concept of power, but whether it is “who holds the power” or “who has autonomy” or if “autonomy is a classification of power”, the seat of power is the real difference between xMOOCs and cMOOCs. Whether you look at is as active learning versus passive learning, or instructivism versus connectivism, or constructivism versus behaviourism, or student-centered versus instructor-centered, the basic question is “who is in the driver’s seat for the learning of each individual learner?”

If the content is laid out for the learner (or “curated” by the instructor) and the learner must go through a certain set of modules and take certain tests and discuss certain topics and so on, the instructor (via course design) is in control of the steering wheel for each learner. They may discuss and form groups and all kinds of social things. They may form PLNs and use Twitter. That does not make the course connectivist. I have been in some courses that had no content but the social groups were so controlled that we had no input on the whole class. If a course is designed on a passive, instructivist, behaviourist, instructor-centered manner, it is still an xMOOC no matter how much social stuff is tacked on.

On the flip side, if each learner is in the driver’s seat for their learning, and you are creating a course that is active, connectivist, contsructivist, student-centered, etc – that is the heart of a cMOOC. You can create weeks worth of content and put it in there, but as long as it is optional for students that want to use it as they see fit, it is still a cMOOC.

So what that means is that courses like EDCMOOC that claim to be neither xMOOC nor cMOOC are actually xMOOCs that just don’t know it. Nothing wrong with being an xMOOC. But why is it an xMOOC? Because the content is “teacher-curated and -annotated selection of resources on weekly themes, including short films, open-access academic papers, media reports, and video resources” that “were the foundation for weekly activities, including discussion in the Coursera forums, blogging, tweeting, an image competition, commenting on digital artifacts created by EDCMOOC teaching assistants, and two Google Hangouts” according to the paper on the course.

The instructors were still in the drivers seat. Sure, they let students form their own groups. They let the students form networks. But they were still in the seat of power.

And to be honest, I don’t have a problem with that happening. Many learners (for better or worse) still want the instructor to be in the driver’s seat. But what about the students that wanted one thing and got another? Confusions in power structure in courses can lead to frustration among learners. They may still end up happy with the course but be confused about what happened along the way. The EDCMOOC article authors pointed out that “For every person who hated the peer assessment, someone else loved it.” Why is that? Were they expecting one thing and got another? Were they confused as to why they read all this curated content and then had another student assess their work? Learners that have to find their own content tend to feel more comfortable with peers assessing their work, but those that have to read curated content (technically, all content added in any course ever was curated) as the foundation for the activities will usually want the instructor to assess their work, since it was the instructor that first told them to consume that content.

Of course, classifications in education are not about black & white, either/or boxes. Classifications like “xMOOC/cMOOC” are really more of generalized categories that kind of coalesce around certain characteristics. But most people know that they are not hard, fast lines. One problem that is emerging in education is misunderstanding what educational classifications are and what they aren’t. MOOC designs that mix elements of xMOOCs and cMOOCs are not a sign that the classifications are wrong. They are a sign that we need to understand the underlying differences even more or we could continue to confuse and polarize the issue even further. More and more learners are discovering the difference between instructivism and connectivism (even if they don’t know those words), and are wanting to learn in their preferred paradigm.


Friday, July 11, 2014 (11:36 am)

Matt CrosslinBridging Learners From Instructivism to Connectivism

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

One of the more interesting challenges of the Dual Layer MOOC project (at least from a design standpoint) is the learner autonomy goal. The instructors don’t want to force learners to be open (or closed, for that matter). If learners want to be completely guided by the instructor (instructivsm), then there will be that option. If learners want to use completely networked learning (connectivism), then there is that option. Designing two layers based on those two ideas is fairly straight forward (as long as you do it well). If learners that are on the networked learning path want to dip into the guided path, that usually is not a problem, because that has always been part of being an autonomous, self-directed, networked learner: find some content and consume it as needed and then go back to your network. However, for those on the guided path that want to transition into networked learning, the path is not as easy. Many may not even try it because they are used to being guided. You can blame the system or learners not wanting to take risks or many other factors and be correct, but the reality is that transitioning from guided objectives to self-directed competencies is a barrier for many learners. One possible solution is to scaffold the learner from instructivism to connectivism. This would go back to the deconstructing objectives idea I touched on earlier, but in this case you could guide learners through it. Remember, this is for the learners who are used to being guided, so you would have to also guide them through the process of learning how to learn (or heutagogy as some call it). Starting with a basic instructivist guided objective with conditions, behaviors, and criteria, you might have something like:

Given the EdX module resources (CN), the learner will analyze ethics in data analytics (B) by scoring at least 90% on the module quiz (CR).

But since that is what they are used to, you could stretch them a little bit by removing the criteria to get them to start thinking for themselves a bit:

Given the EdX module resources (CN), the learner will analyze ethics in data analytics (B) by __________________ (CR).

Learners would have to fill in the blank for themselves. What you have here is the beginnings of the idea behind the ds106 assignment bank, although not quite there yet. Once the learner has gotten this down a bit, you could then take it a step further by removing the condition:

Given _______________________ (CN), the learner will analyze ethics in data analytics (B) by __________________ (CR).

This is a lot closer to the ds106 assignment bank. And then you could even strip everything away from the behavior except the topic and move that to the condition:

Given the topic of ethics in data analytics (CN), the learner will ______________________ (B) by __________________ (CR).

At this point, learners are practically writing their own competencies – they just need to make sure to create something applicable to their situation and they are there. Along with this, you might want to also scaffold them into group work. For example, with the first level of scaffold you might tell them to goto the group discussion board and get feedback on the criteria they are creating. Then on the next level, they could get in groups and swap their personal objectives with others to see if others can accomplish them. Finally, they are placed in groups with other that have similar objectives to find a common goal to work on. Hopefully they can then start working as an autonomous learner within a connectivist environment for the final step. However, there is the big issue of not forcing learners to take this path if they are not ready. There would be great value in creating a course that specifically teaches learners to move from instructivism to connectivism, but that would still be basically one path through the content. Even adding that path to the dual layer MOOC would essentially make it a single pathway course if it was forced on all at a certain point. But learners that are used to instructivism need that path – that guidance – to start the process of stepping out. So the tricky part of the course design would be to create a system that allows learners to stick with the course layer they like, but also switch over as they like (and by default have a pathway for guided instructivist learners to switch over at any point they are ready). One possible solution is to lay out all possible steps each week in the weekly blast or announcement or blog post or whatever it may be. It could look something like this:

Welcome to Week 3 of Data Analytics! The topic for this week will be ethics in data analytics. For those of you in the networked path, you know what to do. Or maybe you don’t yet, but go to your groups and get working. Write your own competencies and get working with others on one of the weekly problems in the Problem Depot. Or create your own problem. Those of you that need a new group to join, go to the Random Group-o-Mizer and select “new networked group”. For those of you on the guided path, your content is in the EdX course. For this week:

  • Given the EdX week 3 resources, you will analyze ethics in data analytics by scoring at least 90% on the module quiz.

For those of you on the guided path that are ready to dip your toe into the networked path, this is your challenge:

  • Given the EdX week 3 resources, you will analyze ethics in data analytics by ____________________ (?)
  • Create your own criteria for determining that you know the content (i.e. fill in the blank above).
  • Go to the Random Group-o-Mizer and select “dipping my toes in”.
  • Share your personalized objective with the group you are assigned to and give feedback on the other group member’s criteria.

For those of you that have dipped your toe in and are ready to go deeper down the rabbit hole, this is your new challenge:

  • Given ________________ (?), you will analyze ethics in data analytics by ____________________ (?)
  • After creating your own criteria (first blank), go find some kind of resources to help you learn what you need to (second blank).
  • Go to the random Random Group-o-Mizer and select “Going deeper down the rabbit hole”
  • In your assigned group, switch your personalized objective with others and see if you can accomplish each other’s objectives.

For those that have taken more control and are almost ready to dive fully in to networked path, this is your final challenge:

  • Given the topic of ethics in data analytics, you will ______________________ (?)  by __________________ (?).
  • Figure out what you are going to do with the topic, how you are going to do that (first blank), and how you are going to prove you did it (second blank).
  • If you apply this objective to some situation in your life, you be pretty much writing your own competencies like a pro.
  • Go to to the Random Group-o-Mizer and select “My path to being a Jedi is almost complete”
  • This should match you up with a small group of people with similar competencies. Your goal as a group is to work together to solve one of the problems in the Problem Depot based on shared competencies.

If you think you are good with the final challenge and want to go through with the full transformation to networked learning, go back to the first part of this daily blast and jump in to the networked learning path.

Of course, there would need to be more guides in there for some of these steps, but hopefully this gives you an idea. The “Random Group-o-Mizer” would basically just be some profile system that allows learners to put in some basic interests, select a level of participation, input their objectives or competencies, and then be grouped according to some algorithms that puts them together by shared objectives/competencies. The “Problem Depot” is basically an assignment bank that is re-purposed for problem-based learning. Learners could even create their own problems and submit to this depot. The basic idea is that every week we give learners the steps to scaffold to connectivism and let them go at their own pace through the transformation. Of course, it won’t be this straight forward or easy in real life, but the struggle is part of connectivism, right?


Tuesday, July 8, 2014 (1:55 pm)

Matt CrosslinScaffolding an Entire University to Open Learning

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

A lot of what I have been blogging lately is just me struggling through various ideas surrounding this whole “Dual Layer MOOC” design idea. Probably the whole term “Dual Layer” is a misleading descriptor anyways. Multiple pathways is better, but since that term already has specific designs attached to it, its hard to fight against that. “Multiple pathway” courses still tend to be “multiple siloed pathways” in which five or ten or how many ever specific defined pathways are given. That’s not really the goal that instructors have for this course.

The underlying goal is create a course that emphasizes diversity, experience, and autonomy in learning, to borrow a description from Stephen Downes.  The problem we are dealing with is the reality that the entire University system is set up in an instructivist manner that values all students going through the same path in each course in order to pass the course by doing exactly what they are told. Students are so used to this system that they are comfortable with it and start freaking out if they are forced to take an open course. To borrow a statement from George Siemens: “We can’t force students to be open.”

So the dual layer MOOC is not about blending cMOOCs and xMOOCs as much as creating a scaffold for those students who are used to instructivist learning to dip their toe in and try out networked learning – if they want. But there are those that want connected deconstructed learning from the beginning, so that option has to be a viable one from the beginning also. If at any time we create narrow pathways that force students to scaffold from instructivism to connectivism, we leave diversity, experience, and autonomy behind. So the door has to remain open, but the learner has to choose when to pass through it.

So this is not a case of the xMOOC wagging the cMOOC tail, or vice versa. If it looks that, its just because I am failing to create adequate metaphors to explain what has been coming out of the design meetings. I still like the play dough metaphor best (we’re just throwing a bunch of play dough cans on the table and learners can pick them up and use them as the like in groups or individually or even just leave the room and go get their own play dough) – but that makes for a lousy blog diagram :)

So, in a lot of ways, I just see this dual layer thing as a step on the process of scaffolding the university system from instructivism and teaching to “sharing the process of thought and inference and discovery with those around you” (to quote Stephen Downes again). That sharing process is the main reason why I started blogging so much about the dual layer MOOC – it will change and even possibly go away. I’m just sharing my process openly. And the feedback I have received has been awesome - so it has been a worthwhile process and will continue time permitting.


Tuesday, July 8, 2014 (7:54 am)

Matt CrosslinResearch Says: Online or Face to Face Is Better?

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Current Events

You know what they say about getting into an argument with an instructional designer over learning design? Oh… they don’t? Well, they should. Anyway… if they did say anything about it, they would say not to do it because instructional designers pretty much shoot holes in everything.

People argue all the time over whether online learning is better or worse than face-to-face. But you ask an instructional designer which is better? Well, neither, both, and… it kinda depends.

Confusing? Yeah, well blame the research. Research is important. Research tells us a lot. Research raises a lot of good questions. But it seems like we as the educational community are misusing and over simplifying the results of the research.

A lot of research is based on numbers. And those numbers might tell us that, say, there is a statistically significant difference between the number of learners that passed the test in the face-to-face version of a course and the number of those that passed in the online version. Or substitute “test” with whatever metric you are using to determine which is better. And so face-to-face is declared the winner and online is the loser that has to slink off and die because it *lost*!

The problem is – online learning obviously worked great for those students that passed – even if there were statistically significantly fewer of them (did I just butcher the English there?). Research is not a contest to show which option is the one right one. We are not in a giant game of Highlander: Education. There can be more than one right way. It can be online and blended and face-to-face. We are not waiting to see which one beheads all the others to become the clear champion of the universe.

So when the Department of Education came out and declared blended learning the best, that did not mean that online and face-to-face were horrible or ineffective. They just found a higher number for blended. That’s all. That doesn’t invalidate the other two. They are  a national entity that has to look at what works for millions of students.

One way that we know that online learning is working is by learner testimonials. There are thousands and thousands of learners all over the nets saying how online learning worked for them. And guess what – some of them actually failed their courses! Wait – am I telling you that scores don’t matter? Well, of course they matter if you want to earn a piece of paper. But many learners don’t look at a passed test or course as a sign of “working.” Earning an “F” in a course could mean they don’t take tests well, or they had a death in the family during the semester, or they went off on a tangent and forgot to take the final because they were too busy learning informally.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum, where students get annoyed at classes and give them bad satisfaction ratings because they were required to do actual work and they thought they should get an A just for paying for the class.

So ultimately, if a student says an online course worked for them because it challenged them to think and learn, that is good evidence that it worked. Test scores and completion rates and satisfaction surveys might also tell us something, but typically those are ranking systems and not a “winner takes all” cage matches.

But another huge problem – one that instructional designers would point out to you – is that even the best research studies cannot really tell you if online or face-to-face is better. They can compare how the learners in one type of online learning design for a specific time period performed against another group of learners in one type of face-to-face learning design for that same period. There are so many different ways to design for learning online, and there are so many different ways to design for face-to-face, and so many ways that different instructors can affect their classes, and so many ways the learner population can affect the mood of the class, and so on. Research gives us a snap shot of what is going on in specific set of classes at a specific time – but the goal should be to ponder what this means for our personal situation and adapt and experiment ourselves. Not “this works! This doesn’t” and move on.

So the instructional designer will tell you that, yes we know a whole lot about what “works” in the macro sense of education, but in a lot of ways we also know very little of what “works” also. We can tell you want generally works in online or face-to-face and what doesn’t… but it ends up being a long vague list that you still have to take a stab at to see what does and doesn’t work for you specifically.

And the kicker is – despite all the research and facts I knew when I started as an instructional designer… I didn’t really get all of this until I started teaching online. Once you start teaching yourself, and trying to actually do what the research says… you begin to realize that it’s not so black and white. There are no champions of the universe, no best practices, no learning styles, no easy categories for everything to fit in. Oh, sure – you “know” that before you start teaching, but it’s kind of like you “know” parenting is tough until you have a kid and see how tough (and wonderful) it can be for yourself. First-hand knowledge changes your perspective radically. And simplistic answers from research goes out the window. The research itself (or at least the good research) doesn’t really ever give easy answers – people just misread it and think it does. Once you start teaching yourself, you begin to realize that you will use research to inform your practice instead of dictate it.

Some day soon I hope we move beyond this pointless rhetoric about online or face-to-face or blended learning being better or a good way to learn or whatever. All education is distributed over a distance anyways. Learners have declared that all work for them. Its better to start looking at what worked or didn’t work for the learners and go from there. That might call for some – gasp – qualitative research!

“So okay, Matt, stop with the whole ‘there is no spoon BS’ and tell me straight – does online learning work or not” you might say. Online learning works – for certain students. What all of the research is really telling us is that what doesn’t work is forcing all students into one-size fits all learning designs. Therefore, that leads me back to why I like working with the dual layer MOOC group - how can we offer students options to determine for themselves what works best? How can we create multiple paths that are truly multiple paths and not just “five different version of the same silo”? How can we create learning designs that emphasize diversity, experience, and autonomy in learning? Especially when so many students are used to instructivist learning?


Thursday, July 3, 2014 (6:49 am)

Matt CrosslinThe Value of True Openness

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

People sometimes ask me why I make a big deal about the difference between open and free. Or even “easy access” and free, for that matter. Well, I thought I would open up a bit about the reasons why it is such a big deal to me. It has to deal with my bitterness towards Google for the whole Jaiku debacle.

You see, I remember when this really cool podcasting company called Odeo started discussing this idea they had for a new service that eventually became know as Twitter. Most people can look that up online. What you can’t quite find written anywhere is that a few days before Twitter went public on July 15, 2006, another microblogging company jumped the gun and launched first.

Jaiku was the cooler, more easy to understand version of Twitter. In addition to your avatar, you could add these cool symbols (icons) to each post that were basically Wing Dings to add a dash of an emotional cue to your short bursts. Comments on a jaiku were threaded. You could also use it as an RSS feed aggregator (your feeds showed up as jaikus). They had several other features that many of us liked more than Twitter, also. Time has erased those memories. But at one point, Jaiku gave Twitter a serious run for their money (although that article seriously gets the launch dates for both services wrong – Twitter was used internally until July 15, 2006).

Another cool feature was that Jaiku had channels – you could create a few of your own and then if you posted your jaiku to a channel it would only appear there. Man, I miss that feature when conference season comes around. And guess what Jaiku used to visually separate these channels from the main flow? A pound sign (#). Look familiar? Yep – Twitter users wanted that feature and didn’t get it so they created the hashtag idea (and technically, this happened well before Chris Messina rallied the Titter community around the idea in August 2007). Back in 2007, the competition between Jaiku and Twitter was intense – a common question at Ed Tech conferences was “do you jaiku or tweet?” The wrong answer – depending on the service the person asking the question was using – could earn you a disappointed “Ohhhhhh…..” (although tech savy people knew how to use both)

So, the hashtag phenomenon we have now? Started at Jaiku. Of course, the pound sign had been used for a long time before that – but the current hashtag as we know it started at Jaiku.

Then Google came along, bought Jaiku, and neglected it. Try as I might, I could not get my jaikus to export to all the tools that claimed they could. I loved those early messages on Jaiku because they were unhindered by all the “rules” that we are supposed to follow on social media today. All of them are just gone forever now.

That is the difference between free or easily accessible and open. Jaiku was free and easy to use, but it was not very open in that I couldn’t take my stuff and save it easily where I wanted it, or use it again anywhere. To be open means that I control my stuff, my words, my identity – including to the point that I can take it off the original site with ease. Without that feature, I have a hard time calling something open.

That is why the new wave of open is so important. If your service is not open in this way, I would suggest using another (more accurate) term. Open should refer to power –  not cost, not access, not certification. Because you see, the things is – if  you get the power thing right, the cost, access, certification, and other issues will probably also follow suit.

Well, unless The Suits get in the way…. which is a whole other issue….


Thursday, June 19, 2014 (2:58 pm)

Matt CrosslinLearning Design Versus Learner Design in the Dual Layer MOOC

Posted by: Matt Crosslin In: Open Learning

So I want to take a step back and look at a bigger picture for a  moment. The previous diagram I created was meant as more of a “learner design” perspective, in the sense that the dual paths would be the two main possibilities for learners. This was meant to look at the course from the eyes of a learner. But, the diagram breaks down in many ways since this will not be a traditional course. This course will attempt to deconstruct what it is to learn, be a learner, and to move through a course.

There has been a lot of really good feedback on the diagrams. Mike Caufield makes a great suggestion for considering the idea of federation in this course. I’ll have to figure that one out some more and unpack that in another post. I want to zero in on a few big design considerations first.

Stephen Downes asked “But is that really distributed, the way a cMOOC would be? At a certain point, the movement to collect people into single-site courses collides with the movement toward things like indieweb and reclaim your domain.” Good questions, and very true. The main idea behind this dual design is to be distributed, and that is where my diagram starts to break down if you examine it closely enough. At some point, we probably will need to look at several things and decide between collected and distributed. Not that we will want to, but there will be time and technology constraints to consider, and then on top of that many thousands of people that are used to the collected, silo approach to learning will need scaffolding to get out of that mindset.

But the goal is to dismantle, deconstruct, and distribute as much as possible. Unfortunately, I did not capture that well in the diagram.

So let me look at this based on some other questions. Many have asked good questions about how competencies will work across xMOOCs and cMOOCs, as well as how the software for cMOOCs and xMOOCs can be connected in ways that connects designs that don’t fit together. All of these are good questions, and reveal how we will have to look at design in a vastly different way than we do in traditional classes and even many MOOCs.

Most of our design methods follow an ADDIE-ish structure that focuses on defining learner paths, pre-set competencies/objectives, pre-defined outcomes, and collected silo approaches. For this class, my goal is to transition from learner design to learning design. Instead of looking at what each path will look like, what content students will consume, what artifacts they will create, etc, we will need to plop the learner down at the middle of a fluid diagram and then place all of the parts around the learner. Instead of equal and opposite paths with xMOOCs and cMOOCs and instructors and books, we see a learner surrounded with many tools that they can choose as they so desire. Like this:

learning design 1

These parts are all possibilities that the learner can choose from to meet their chosen competencies – but what they use is up to them at any given point (I only put a few examples above – there are many others). Therefore, the design for the class could be more along the lines of giving the learner freedom to choose how they prove they learned what they claim to have learned.

Think of this in the sense of objectives. To have a good objectives, one model is to write a sentence with conditions, behaviors, and criteria. For example:

Using Tableau (CN), the learner will analyze the sample data (B) with at least 90% accuracy (CR).

This is how we typically create objectives in traditional learning. However, the sample data might be meaningless to most learners, and some learners may think 90% is too low while others might be new and think it is too high. To deconstruct this approach to writing objectives, you would start to put in many more blanks:

Using Tableau (CN), the learner will __________________ (B) by ___________________ (CR).

Those blanks would be filled in by students during class. This is the basic idea behind the assignment bank that ds106 uses very effectively. Let the learner set their own objectives and competencies and then let the learner choose how to demonstrate mastery. To do so, the learner might focus heavily on more instructivist resources to meet their objectives, like this:

learning design 2

Or, the learner may focus more on cMOOC resources to meet their objectives, like this:

learning design 3

Notice that not all of the aspect available are used, and even those that are used are not equally utilized. Additionally, these diagrams would not stay static through the whole course – they would morph over time to meet different objectives and competencies as they morph over time. If I had time, this would be better demonstrated by an animation that morphs through several versions as the class progresses. Keep in mind, this is in conjunction with the tubing metaphor of group formation (for those students that choose to have groups) as well as the dual pathways diagram. This is just another abstraction of different aspects.

This would also mean that the various software solutions would only need to be able to connect user accounts across systems and then export artifacts as needed. In other words, we don’t have to worry about how a paper submitted for “Week 1″ to EdX can be connected with a blog post for “Week 1″ on WordPress or how a discussion response on Facebook can be connected to a Tweet that also responds to the question. We just need to connect the user accounts from EdX and WordPress and Twitter and Tumblr with an account on a central profile (on something like ProSolo). These connected accounts would just need to be able to send out what ever artifact the student wants to use to prove they know the topic. This central profile would not necessarily collect and silo these artifacts, but would link to distributed artifacts. This could be then used for portfolios, badges, certifications, etc. All of this work could be individual or group based (as long as groups come together around shared objectives).

Again, none of this is new stuff – these are all ideas that others have explored. The main goal is to keep this all distributed and open. Anywhere where it doesn’t sound like that is probably just a break down in my explanation. But I need people pointing that out to help clarify and improve the design before we move into production. And I apologize where I had to gloss over some detailed complexities in order to just get to the point. But this is an idea in progress, and I have a bad habit of explaining something and then blowing it up the next day because I found a problem with it :)


Email Updates

Enter your email address to get the latest blog posts sent directly to your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Also want get all comments emailed to your inbox? Enter your email address in this box:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Welcome to EduGeek Journal

Welcome to EduGeek Journal, proud sponsor of your future. Our goal is to promote educational technology by helping educators stay one step ahead of Joneses. We like to pour over new ideas and dream about what could possibly happen in the future in the world of education.


EduGeeks on Twitter

EduGeek Journal on Facebook

ClustrMap + Badges

Locations of visitors to this page