On Friday, April 5th, Penn will host the Silfen University Forum, which will discuss "Open Learning and the Future of Higher Education." An acclaimed group of panelists will discuss this important topic, as Penn President Amy Gutmann moderates. One of the scheduled participants of this forum is one of the most well-known advocates of open learning: Coursera co-founder Daphne Koller.
Koller, the award-winning Rajeev Motwani Professor in the Computer Science Department at Stanford University, co-founded Coursera with Andrew Ng (Director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab and Associate Professor of Computer Science). The massive open online course platform, of which Penn has partnered with, officially launched in April 2012 and has given learners across the world access to high quality college courses for free through the internet. While some have proclaimed this to be the ultimate disruption of higher education, others claim that the classroom experience cannot be replicated or surpassed by a digital platform such as this one. What are Koller's thoughts on the matter? I had a chance to catch up with the Coursera co-founder in anticipation of the Silfen University Forum to get some of her thoughts on open learning and the future of higher (and to a further extent, general) education:
MTW: As open learning becomes more prominent in education, what role do you see future educators fulfilling in the classroom? DK: I think most educators will move to a role in which they interact much more closely and directly with their students. Rather than spending most of their time on content preparation & dissemination, and on grading of homework, they will be guides, tutors, coaches. They will also curate content and contextualize it, and make it directly relevant to their students' needs. MTW: What things should a professor who is thinking of teaching a MOOC for Coursera keep in mind about the thousands of potential learners that may take their course? DK: That they come from very diverse backgrounds: geographical, socio-economic, educational, ethnic. Therefore, one needs to teach in a way that is more inclusive, and very sensitive to students' different needs and expectations. MTW: Where would you like to see Coursera and open learning in 5-10 years? DK: We believe in learning without limits. I would love to be able to connect anyone, anywhere to the best education in any topic.
MTW: What is the biggest misconception you’ve seen or heard regarding Coursera and MOOCs? DK: That they are non-interactive and non-social. MTW: What is the most important thing that you hope everyone recognizes about the possibilities of open learning? DK: That nothing empowers like knowledge, and that making education a basic human right can help move us closer to solving many other of the world's problems. *** For more thoughts from Daphne Koller about open learning and the future of higher education in anticipation of her appearance at the Silfen University Forum, see her Ted Talk below from June 2012 (published August 2012):
*Although tickets are no longer available for the Silfen University Forum, you can still view the webcast of the event by going to this link on Friday, April 5th 2013 at 12pm: http://www.upenn.edu/silfenforum/webcast.html*
The biggest buzz-term in higher education right now is "MOOC." A MOOC (massive open online course) has the potential to give thousands of students from all over the globe free access to high quality education from top professors completely through the internet. Penn has thrown their hat in this ring, supporting one of the big platforms for MOOCs called Coursera (Penn Coursera courses are here) and there will be a forum at Penn on April 5th discussing open learning, the principal that sets the foundation for MOOCs.
The question that everyone is attempting to answer: Are MOOCs the future of higher education? Will they continue to disrupt higher education by granting widespread free access to knowledge that previous generations have paid thousands of dollars for? Will they unite people all over the globe as these people pursue the quest for high level knowledge? Will they level the playing field for citizens everywhere?
I do not have the answer, however, I am optimistic. I am a big fan of open learning and utilizing technologies in innovative ways to maximize learning. In this case, MOOCs have the potential to be amazing fixtures in education.
Because I often look at learning environment design and the intricacies that create a space that maximizes learning for the learner, there are 2 design questions that I feel are important as we figure out the future of MOOCs:
First, how should we design MOOCs to keep the learner motivated? The foundation of a MOOC relies heavily on the self-motivational capacity of the learner. There are a lot of articles that state that many people who start a MOOC do not finish. I am not sure that we can interpret the MOOC stats correctly as of yet (remember, stats don't always tell the whole story). So rather than focusing on that, I'd like to focus on motivation as a whole. How can we make sure that the learner stays motivated when there's no one forcing him or her to keep going?
Second, what is the best way to design a MOOC for maximum learning? The main issue here is even if we can motivate the learner to keep participating in a MOOC through its design, he or she may not get the most out of the learning experience that they can. If they are motivated to finish a MOOC, but learn less than or even the same as what they would have learned in the classroom, isn't that a missed opportunity given how boundless a digital environment can be?
If we simply transfer the classroom experience to an online space (by say, turning the lectures into video lectures, and then tacking on a discussion forum), I do not think this will result in the maximum amount of learning that could occur from a MOOC. Going back to my previous post that discussed why we must learn from learners, it is important that we get an understanding of how learning currently takes place in digital environments like virtual worlds, video games, and participatory media from the perspective of those who are actually learning in those environments. An understanding of this will help as we design any digital environment for learning, including MOOCs.
These are just 2 of many, many thoughts I have about MOOCs and their future. I believe it is a bright future and that right now educators and researchers are working out the kinks. We have only begun to experience what a MOOC can do and what it can consist of. Beyond the hype, this really is a very important development in higher education and perhaps one day, in all of education.
This is an interesting time to be in the field of education. I follow the stories, the trends, and the developments, and it seems like there are nearly a million ideas about where we should take education. From new technologies in the classroom, to the rise of MOOCS (massive open online courses), education is in an exciting, yet somewhat volatile place right now. For everyone in support of one way of forming or reforming current education (whether PreK-12 or Higher Ed), there is another person or group that is in support of a completely opposite direction. This is not new. In our studies at GSE, we have learned that theories of education have always had opposition. There never seems to be a time where there is one absolute truth. Some may say that this is the beauty of education - that there is no absolute truth. We're dealing with human beings, and because no two human beings are exactly alike, there's no way that a one-size-fits-all education can work. Therefore, there has to be different theories and different approaches. The major concern, however, is whether we as educators and administrators are so focused on the possible theories, angles, and perspectives of education, that we are not concentrating enough on the learner and the learning that takes place within education. Learning is a phenomenon that is exclusive of education. Education is a social structure meant to foster and facilitate learning. When we hear stories of students who are having trouble learning (or trouble proving that they've learned something), I believe we are too quick to think about the problems with education. Perhaps the problem is not so much that we need, let's say, to turn a public school into a charter school, but rather that we have to reflect on whether our methods of connecting with the learners of today actually connects. Are we doing our best to really understand how today's student (digital natives as they are labeled, since they have grown up using the technology that is prominent today) receives and interprets information and knowledge? Are we talking to the digital natives to get an understanding of why they are so interested in that cell phone that we think is a distraction in the classroom? The answer may be deeper and more complex than "Oh they just like to be on that silly Facebook." More than ever, this is a time where we as educators and administrators need to get to know the students of today. All of the technology that has exploded onto the educational scene is fairly recent. It is possible that the students of today "know" as much or even more about how that technology should be used to teach them than we do, even with our extensive research backgrounds and educational experience. I believe it's important that, as we shape the world of education for the students of today and tomorrow, we consider these students almost like co-researchers and learn with them and from them about what works best to help them learn. Paulo Freire wrote a chapter in his book, Pedagogy of Freedom, titled, "There is No Teaching Without Learning." Are we spending enough time learning about - and from - our students of today so that we can put them in the best position to receive the knowledge we are trying to teach them?
Last week in my Leadership in Educational Institutions course, we discussed teacher leaders and the roles they play in schools. We looked at teacher leaders in the appointed sense, where a principal may assign a teacher to be in charge of training the other teachers in certain skills due to his or her expertise. We learned that the implementation of the teacher leader concept is one that at times faces challenges due to the lack of clarity of the role. This could lead to various levels of success or failure. But what happens when someone assumes the responsibility of a teacher leader, without being appointed to a teacher leader position? Can it be successful? Are there challenges?
Enter Brendon Jobs, a Penn GSE Alum ('11), who teaches at the Philadelphia High School for Girls. Assuming the teacher leader role without being officially assigned to the position, Jobs gave me a first-hand account of his success and challenges as he tries to "unofficially" lead his colleagues.
MTW: How did you become a teacher leader? BJ: You can either be selected or self-appointed. I’m one of the self-appointed teacher leaders. We came up with this organization called Revamp Girls High School, and it ended up being a voluntary [teacher-led] school improvement group. We would kind of map out the vision of what a Girls High School girl is and should be, and also think about different functions within the school. There were points where people could come to share ideas about what they wanted and expected from the school. The environment we constructed through Revamp Girls High School made me feel like a teacher leader.
Brendon goes on to describe some of his success in this unofficial teacher leader role: BJ:I had a great administrator. She let us publicize and get [Revamp] together. And slowly but surely I feel like people [at Girls High] were more open and candid in conversations. I think Revamp made it so that there was a better sense of relational trust between the administration and the faculty, and the students as well. I also started giving periodical professional development sessions, and that’s not something that faculty members generally step up to do. Teacher leaders operate within the school building. You have to think of yourself as a member of the faculty, not just a teacher in a classroom.
I try to bring some of the professional development stuff I've done in Philadelphia back to my department. [For example], we don’t get professional development on issues of gender. I was able to share the studies I did at Penn on that topic. I don’t know how to measure whether or not it’s doing anything. That can be something that’s difficult about teacher leadership. But I think it definitely contributed to the school environment.
MTW: What are some of the challenges you've encountered as a teacher leader? BJ: The union fought [Revamp] really hard. I feel like a lot of people, more of the senior faculty, were suspicious of the group. There was a lot of push back and apathy. There’s always going to be that resistance to change, unless that change is mandated from above. I don’t think superintendents and school reform commissions really run what we do. I feel like as an educator, as a professional, I have a say of how I conduct my classroom environment and school environment.
MTW: Are there any interpersonal strategies you developed to overcome these challenges? BJ: In general when you’re respectful and thoughtful and engaging with faculty or children, they respond to that. I was told by a friend of mine on the staff that sometimes I seem unapproachable. I think I’m unapproachable to the right people. If you’re going to come over here and complain, I’m not the one to talk to. But if you want to develop yourself, or talk about awesome things that are happening with our girls, or in your class, then I love talking about that.
MTW: What advice do you have for current education students who may want to be a teacher leader one day?
Wherever you are, wherever you end up, get out of your classroom and use your summers to develop yourself and to greet people outside of your school building and district. There are teachers all over the country that do amazing things. Every summer I come back energized because I interact with people who are energizing and have amazing ideas. Make sure you don’t stay in your box. Try your best to not operate from a "place of protection." Your new and young, so experiment and have fun. Brendon Jobs' official website: https://sites.google.com/site/brendonjobs/
This is the final part of the interview with four Penn Doctoral students who contribute to the Media Pedagogy Lab, CAMRA. They are preparing for the First Annual Screening Scholarship Series Festival this Sunday, an event that CAMRA is co-sponsoring. Part 1 of the interview is here. Part 2 of the interview is here. MTW: The upcoming Screening Scholarship Media Festival is the inaugural event of its kind at Penn. In what ways, if any, do you measure the success and effectiveness of the festival? Matthew Tarditi (Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education): For me, the sheer nature of the process is a measure of success for me. Truly collaborative, creative, supportive and facilitated by technology, the organization of the festival modeled the guiding principles of CAMRA and the essential elements for building partnership and community among our members and affiliates. Even so, it would be dishonest of me to say that I am not concerned with attendance and basic efficiency and smoothness of operations as two main measures of success/effectiveness; however, the quality of the experience and not the quantity of the attendees is my main concern. That being said, we want SSMF to be a forum for sharing, collaborating, questioning and exploring, and based on the characteristics of the participants and attendees, as well as my own penchant for community building, I am confident that the festival will leave me satisfied with the experience yet hungry for more of its kind.
Leya Matthew (Education): That’s a good question. On a personal level, as a researcher, it will be on the basis of questions and discussions that bear directly on the issues I struggle with as I use video/audio as a research method. In that sense it is a way to plug into a larger community that is invested in the questions I struggle with. At an institutional level it is one step in legitimization; at recognizing non-textual works as scholarship, which is why it is a hybrid between a Media Festival and a conference. That is a very conscious and strategic space we are trying to define, where a peer-reviewed screening will be treated with the same seriousness as a conference presentation or an academic paper. Sofia Chaparro (Educational Linguistics): The fact that we've been able to organize the festival at all, that we've received institutional support from the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, the Annenberg School for Communication, and the Graduate School of Education, as well as student organizations such as GAPSA, and most importantly the excitement of those who hear about it, to me already makes it a successful endeavor. The goal really is to bring together a community of students, scholars and media-makers who are concerned with innovating the way we do research in the academy through the use of diverse media and technologies, and thinking about the implications that such innovations bring for the process of knowledge production itself and the wider impact of our work. Arjun Shankar (Anthropology and Education): I think the success of the festival will be measured by the types of dialogue that go on in each of the sessions. If audience members and presenters are able to collectively and openly think about ethical and theoretical issues, then I think we would have met the festivals goals. What I am most afraid of is outright dismissal of particular products or points of view because of a dogmatic stance regarding what research should be, etc. That is precisely what we aren't about. I am hoping that the first assumptions of everyone present is that there are valuable leanings to be had, and to really spend the time to understand how to incorporate these leanings into their own practice within and outside of the academy.
This is part 2 of the interview with four Penn Doctoral students who contribute to the Media Pedagogy Lab, CAMRA. They are preparing for the First Annual Screening Scholarship Series Festival this Sunday, an event that CAMRA is co-sponsoring. For part 1 of the interview, click here. MTW: One of the results of creating new ways to present research is that you can establish new ways to set the tone of the learning environment. As visual and digital research representation becomes more prevalent, what aspects of the learning environment - and the students and scholars in those environments - must researchers be aware of? Matthew Tarditi (Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education): Pedagogy is at the heart of CAMRA and most of us in the organization who are educators and/or educational scholars are keenly aware of the relation between research, knowledge production and issues of representation on one hand and teaching and learning on the other. Audio-visual and digital technologies pervade all facets of our lives, not only as learners and teachers, but also as social beings acting and interacting with one another through these media. Therefore, researchers must continue to be aware of the ways technology mediates and influences the complex array of individuals, knowledges, relationships, contexts and learning environments, among other variables, in order to explore, account for and ultimately incorporate these media (existing and new) into pedagogical approaches. Lastly, for researchers, the issues of ethics and participation are important themes warranting thoughtful consideration and awareness as we continue to experiment with multimedia technologies in educational environments.
Sofia Chaparro (Educational Linguistics): First, we must address the media literacies we come with as audiences for digital/visual/auditory representations of research. How do we interpret what we see and hear? What literacies are already in place that frame what we see in particular ways? Secondly, we must address the issue of legitimization of this type of genre in the academy. How do evaluate such work? Is there a way to “peer review” and “publish” digital/visual/aural works? What criteria do we use? Part of the project of CAMRA is engaging the academic community in this discussion so that we may begin to articulate frameworks that will allow this work to “count” just as much as written papers and publications do. Finally, as Matt mentioned above, issues of ethics and representation come to the forefront whenever you use visual media as a methodology in social scientific research, particularly ethnography. To me, it means that fostering critical literacies in students is paramount as a goal of education at all levels. Arjun Shankar (Anthropology and Education): This is a great question and one I have been thinking about a lot. The first is that technologies (film, multimedia) are not some magic bullet. We have all been in classrooms already in which professors put on films expecting that the film will somehow do all the teaching for them. In reality, these forms of media have to be thought of with a pedagogical lens in mind. What types of power differentials and inequalities might the film be propagating? What are the major questions which a professor needs to be ready to address and critique when students integrate these new forms into their learning environments? These are really important ethical questions which cannot be swept away. The second part of this is that we cannot expect students to be able to utilize these tools in self-conscious ways just because they are immersed in digitality in their everyday life. To use these tools effectively, professors have to begin allowing students to experiment with production, and help students see how their own biases come out in what and how they produce these digital products.
This Sunday, CAMRA (a Media Pedagogy Lab at Penn) GSE, and the Annenberg School for Communication will co-sponsor the First Annual Screening Scholarship Media Festival at Penn. The festival will run for most of the day, and will allow attendees to explore how, as the website says, "diverse and creative uses of multimedia are changing knowledge production and the research imagination." I had a chance to catch up with a few of the Penn student contributors of CAMRA to find out a little more about the lab and the upcoming festival. The four students I interviewed are all in Ph.D programs: Matthew Tarditi (Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education), Leya Matthew (Education), Sofia Chaparro (Educational Linguistics) and Arjun Shanker (Anthropology and Education). This is Part 1 of 3. Part 2 will be posted Wednesday, and Part 3 will be posted Thursday.
MTW: CAMRA has an ambitious mission. What does this mission and the goals of the group mean to you personally?
Matt: There are many aspects of CAMRA's mission that speak to me. The creative, artistic and rigorous incorporation of multimedia technologies, specifically film for me, in all stages of the research process and the overall academic project are both exciting and necessary as the world becomes increasingly digital and audio-visual. Multimedia not only speaks to a larger audience, but more importantly, it affords researchers like myself boundless possibilities for representing research, producing knowledge, and collaborating with partners, communities and research participants. Relatedly, there are exciting pedagogical openings and opportunities enriched by technology broadly, and multimedia technology more specifically. It is because of these rich opportunities associated by multimedia technologies that I am drawn to CAMRA. Most personally of these are the artistic/creative and collaborative affordances. In sum, informed and guided by a strong collaborative orientation, the mission of CAMRA is also my personal mission as a practitioner, researcher and being in the world. Leya:I
think CAMRA is on one level an acknowledgment of the growing diversity of the
academic population. As people from other knowledge traditions like
filmmaking bring diverse ways of knowing the world into the academy, epistemological and ontological disorientations are bound to creep up. It
becomes necessary that positions taken for granted be taken up for scrutiny yet
again, be it who has claims for knowledge production or even what scholarship
looks like. In one way, I find it astounding that knowledge claims have
succeeded, for so long, to retain the supremacy of one specific medium - text. At
the same time, I also see a tendency to translate textual scholarship into
film, maybe too literally. Nevertheless, it is exciting to build this community
here at Penn, to re-imagine scholarship in ways that make research exciting,
and anxious in some ways. I say anxious because new techniques also raise up
questions of ethics in urgent ways. This is not new, anthropologists have been
struggling with these questions for a very long time, which is probably why we
trace our intellectual debts to anthropology in many ways. Sofia: I was initially very drawn to the use of film and visual media in research for its potential in reaching wider audiences, something particularly important for me as a former teacher and educational researcher. At the same time, using film in my field site last year made me realize that it impacts every step of the process, not just the dissemination stage. So that film becomes as much a product as a process that will impact the research relationships I develop with my participants, the interpretations and analysis that I gather from my data, and the ethical questions I must address in the process of representation. Arjun: For me, CAMRA represents a changing way of thinking
about knowledge production in the university. Firstly, and this is
really important, it means including voices in the conversation which
have previously been marginalized or excluded completely. I have been
thinking a lot about participatory methods, which necessarily mean deciding who has access to and can disseminate research - whether
it's filmmakers, teachers, students, etc. An academy which takes these
voices seriously will not only be a more ethical place, but also a much
more lively intellectual community. For me, it also means a new way to
think creatively about research; what technology has done is force me to
critique textual practice itself. For example, if we can begin
exploring fictional methods in film then why not in text as well? What
artistic openings are we afforded?
