Posts tagged ‘MOOCs’

Providing computing education to the developing world: How do we avoid educational imperialism?

I got an email from CodersTrust, asking me to help promote this idea of developing grants to help students in the developing world learn to code. But the education materials they’re offering is the same CodeAcademy, Coursera MOOCs, and similar developed-world materials. Should they be? Should we just be sending the educational materials developed for US and Europe to the developing world? I thought that that was one of the complaints about existing MOOCs, that they’re a form of educational imperialism.

CodersTrust is the brainchild of Ferdinand Kjærulff. As a Captain of the Danish army he served as recovery officer in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. He pioneered a recovery project with the allied forces, bringing internet and e-learning to the citizens of the region in which he was stationed. The project was a massive success and inspired him to eventually create CodersTrust – supported by Danida – with a vision to democratize access to education via the internet on a global scale.

via CodersTrust | About.

September 7, 2015 at 7:50 am 2 comments

ICER 2015 Preview: First CSLearning4U Ebook Paper

ICER 2015 (see website here) is August 9-13 in Omaha, Nebraska. The event starts for me and Barbara Ericson, Miranda Parker, and Briana Morrison on Saturday August 8. They’re all in the Doctoral Consortium, and I’m one of the co-chairs this year. (No, I’m not a discussant for any of my students.) The DC kickoff dinner is on Saturday, and the DC is on Sunday. My thanks to my co-chair Anthony Robins and to our discussants Tiffany Barnes, Steve Cooper, Beth Simon, Ben Shapiro, and Aman Yadav. A huge thanks to the SIGCSE Board who fund the DC each year.

We’ve got two papers in ICER this year, and I’ll preview each of them in separate blog posts. The papers are already available in the ACM digital library (see listing here), and I’ll put them on my Guzdial Papers page as soon as the Authorizer updates with them.

I’m very excited that the first CSLearning4U project paper is being presented by Barbara on Tuesday. (See our website here, the initial blog post when I announced the project here, and the announcement that the ebook is now available). Her paper, “Analysis of Interactive Features Designed to Enhance Learning in an Ebook,” presents the educational psychology principles on memory and learning that we’re building on, describes features of the ebooks that we’re building, and presents the first empirical description of how the Runestone ebooks that we’re studying (some that we built, some that others have built) are being used.

My favorite figure in the paper is this one:


This lists all the interactive practice elements of one chapter of a Runestone ebook along the horizontal axis (in the order in which they appear in the book left-to-right), and the number of users who used that element vertically. The drop-off from left-to-right is the classic non-completion rate that we see in MOOCs and other online education. Notice the light blue bars labelled “AC-E”? That’s editing code (in executable Active Code elements). Notice all the taller bars around those light blue bars? That’s everything else. What we see here is that fewer and fewer learners edit code, while we still see learners doing other kinds of learning practice, like Parsons Problems and multiple choice problems. Variety works to keep more users engaged for longer.

A big chunk of the paper is a detailed analysis of learners using Parsons Problems. Barbara did observational studies and log file analyses to gauge how difficult the Parsons problems were.  The teachers solved them in one or two tries, but they had more programming experience.  The undergraduate and high schools students had more difficulty — some took over 100 tries to solve a problem. Her analysis supports her argument that we need adaptive Parsons Problems, which is a challenge that she’s planning on tackling next.

August 5, 2015 at 7:35 am 3 comments

Moving Beyond MOOCS: Could we move to understanding learning and teaching?

We’re years into the MOOC phenomenon, and I’d hoped that we’d get past MOOC hype. But we’re not.  The article below shows the same misunderstandings of learning and teaching that we heard at the start — misunderstandings that even MOOC supporters (like here and here) have stopped espousing.

The value of being in the front row of a class is that you talk with the teacher.  Getting physically closer to the lecturer doesn’t improve learning.  Engagement improves learning.  A MOOC puts everyone at the back of the class, listening only and doing the homework.

In many ways, we have a romanticized view of college. Popular portrayals of a typical classroom show a handful of engaged students sitting attentively around a small seminar table while their Harrison Ford-like professor shares their wisdom about the world. We all know the real classroom is very different. Especially in big introductory classes — American history, U.S. government, human psychology, etc. — hundreds of disinterested, and often distracted, students cram into large impersonal lecture halls, passively taking notes, occasionally glancing up at the clock waiting for the class to end. And it’s no more engaging for the professor. Usually we can’t tell whether students are taking notes or updating their Facebook page. For me, everything past the ninth row was distance learning. A good online platform puts every student in the front row.

via Moving Beyond MOOCS | Steven M. Gillon.

June 5, 2015 at 7:14 am 9 comments

California’s multi-million dollar online ed flop is a blow for MOOCs: What happened?

I don’t think that MOOCs are a good solution for required classes.  I agree with the idea that MOOCs are for people who want to learn something because they’re interested in it, and that completion rates don’t matter there.

That suggests that we shouldn’t use MOOCs where (a) the students don’t know what they need to know and (b) completion rates matter.

  • Thus, don’t use MOOCs for intro courses (as we learned at GT with English composition and physics) where students don’t know that they really need this knowledge to go on, and the completion rates are even worse than in other MOOCs. The combination hurts the students who want to go on to subsequent courses. Using MOOCs to provide adults with content that might be covered in an intro course isn’t the same thing. For example, an intro to programming course for adults who want to understand something about coding, but not necessarily continue in CS studies, makes sense for a MOOC. If they’re not trying to prepare for a follow-on course, then the completion rate doesn’t really matter.  If the MOOC learners are adults who are foraging for certain information, then the even-lower completion rate in intro-content MOOCs makes sense.  There may only be a small part of that content that someone doesn’t already know.
  • Thus, don’t use MOOCs to teach high school teachers about CS, where they don’t know what CS they need to know, they’re uncertain about becoming CS teachers, and a lack of completion means that the teachers who don’t complete (90-95% of enrollees) don’t know the curriculum that they’re supposed to teach. Using MOOCs to provide existing CS teachers with new opportunities to learn is a good match for the student audience to the affordances of the medium. Trying to draw in new CS teachers (when they are so hard to recruit) via MOOCs makes little sense to me.

Setting aside my concerns about MOOCs, it’s not exactly clear what’s going on in the below article.  I get that it’s not good that California had to just forgive the loan of $7M USD, and that they will likely to continue to lose money.  I get that the quote below says, “we got extremely little in return.”  I don’t see what was the return.  I don’t see how many students actually participated (e.g., we’re told that there was only 250 non-UC students, but not how many UC students participated), and if the courses they created could continue to be used for years after, and so on.  It doesn’t look good, but there’s not enough information here to know that it was bad.

“We spent a lot of money and got extremely little in return,” said Jose Wudka, a physics professor at UC-Riverside who previously chaired the Systemwide Committee on Educational Policy of the Academic Senate, which represents faculty in the UC System.

The project, which cost $7 million to set up at a time when the state was cutting higher-education funding, aspired to let students take courses across campuses.

via California’s multi-million dollar online education flop is another blow for MOOCs – The Hechinger Report.

May 29, 2015 at 8:37 am 2 comments

Stanford president refines his vision for MOOCs in education

These do sound like the kinds of things that learning scientists were saying at the start of the MOOC hype (like this post), but I’m glad that he now realizes that MOOCs have limited use and that students vary widely.

And as for MOOCs, which many still predict will displace traditional teaching, he said that they “were the answer when we weren’t sure what the question was.”

He said that their massive nature, which attracted so much attention, was ultimately a problem. “When I think about MOOCs, the advantage — the ability to prepare a course and offer it without personal interaction — is what makes them inexpensive and makes them very limited.”

Students “vary widely in terms of their skills and capability,” he said, such that massiveness is simply not an educational advantage. “For some it’s too deep and for some it is too shallow.”

via Stanford president offers predictions on a more digital future for higher education @insidehighered.

April 22, 2015 at 8:25 am 2 comments

Google Computer Science for High School open for face-to-face again

Really great news: The Google CS4HS program is again open to face-to-face professional development!  Last year, they only offered MOOC-based PD (see blog post here).  The new call is backed up with research, so that the CS4HS programs are designed to be more effective.  (I suspect that Chris Stephenson’s move to Google had something to do with this…)

Google believes the new Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles (CSP) course being developed by the National Science Foundation and the College Board is key to engaging a more diverse audience of students in computer science. Adoption and exemplary teaching of this course requires a community-wide effort to prepare teachers. To that end, in 2015 the CS4HS program will be providing grants to universities and educational non-profits interested in helping their local teacher community prepare to teach CSP.

Research (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Wiske, Stone, & Levinson, 1993) shows that peer-to-peer professional development and on-going support improve teachers’ abilities to adopt and implement new content and skills. Based on this research Google’s intention in 2015 is to provide funding support for:

  • professional development workshops (face to face and online) focused on CSP
  • establishment of or work with existing communities of practice (COP) that will support ongoing professional development and advocacy for CSP on an ongoing basis.


  • Applicants must satisfy the following criteria in order to be eligible:

  • You must be affiliated with a college, university, technical college, community college, or an official non-profit organization focused on education.

  • Your workshop must have a clear focus on the College Board’s new AP Computer Science Principles curriculum.

  • Your workshop must be followed up with a plan for year-round communities of practice work that supports ongoing PD and advocacy for the Computer Science Principles curriculum.

  • Online courses must use Google products for content delivery.

  • Online courses must be massive, open, and online; therefore enrollment cannot be capped.

via Google Computer Science for High School.

January 16, 2015 at 8:47 am Leave a comment

What MOOCs are really good for: I’m going to do my first MOOC

A nice piece updating what we know about MOOCs, who’s taking them, and what they’re good for.  I have decided to offer my first MOOC, as part of an HCI specialization with Coursera.  (See the announcement here.)  This fits in exactly with what I think a MOOC is good for — it’s professional development for people with background in the field.  If students going to learn about HCI, I’d also like them to learn about making technologies for learning and about how people learn.  I agreed to do a short four week MOOC on designing learning technologies, development to occur this summer.  This isn’t about my research exactly (though, because it’s me, a lot of the examples will probably come from computing education). It’s not about reaching an under-served population, or teaching CS-novices or teachers.  Different purpose, different objectives — and objectives for this course and for the GT HCI specialization match for what a MOOC is good for.

The companies that rode to fame on the MOOC wave had visions and still do of offering unfettered elite education to the masses and driving down college tuition. But the sweet spot for MOOCs is far less inspirational and compelling. The courses have become an important supplement to classroom learning and a tool for professional development.

via Demystifying the MOOC –

December 19, 2014 at 8:15 am Leave a comment

Older Posts

Recent Posts

November 2015
« Oct    


Blog Stats

  • 1,153,148 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,666 other followers

CS Teaching Tips


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,666 other followers