On Thursday I shared an hour with Terri Rowenhorst of NROC introducing folks at WCET 2009 to open education and some of the ideas and directions orbiting around it. Mine was just a half-hour pres, and didn’t get into some of the meatier bits that interest me; nonetheless the slides and video may be of interest:

• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” slides on SlideShare
• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” video on ustream

You may have already heard some of the Twitter buzz about Chris Lott’s presentation, “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis”, so here are links to his slides, video, and wiki:

• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” video on ustream
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” slides on SlideShare
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” wiki with matrix

Chris let me moderate this session, and it was exciting to monitor the backchannels on Twitter and ustream for questions, ideas, or challenges that I could interrupt him with. As always, Chris did a fabulous job presenting a continual stream of rich ideas on technology and learning. I must admit I may have underestimated both Chris and the WCET audience prior to the session; both seemed quite comfortable with complex and provocative notions embedded in our connected culture and interplaying with Ong’s concept of a “secondary orality”.

• Watch Video: Skateboarding in Education

Assumptions about online class size are often based on “traditional”, face-to-face (f2f) class experiences. Past studies suggest that the effectiveness of f2f classes is negatively tied to the number of students in the class, and that a range of 12-25 students may be an acceptable plateau for many classes. The ideal may in fact be a 1-to-1, mentor-like relationship between student and instructor–such as described by Bloom as the 2-sigma problem. We can also comfortably state that more students can equal more work for the instructor (more questions, more grading, more interaction)–potentially at the cost of instruction. At the very least we can assume that there are some class sizes at which learning will inevitably suffer (Drago & Peltier, 37), for all courses require some degree of student-instructor interaction, don’t they?

We thus may be inclined to believe that there must be some correlation in online courses as there is on face-to-face courses. Indeed, a number of commentators on the issue recommend the same class sizes for online courses as have been recommended for traditional courses, even though there is still little research on the effect of class size in online courses. Toth & Montagna conclude that in ten years of research on the subject there is no consistent evidence of a predictable connection between student achievement and online class size. Why might that be? It may be that best practices in education are changing (informed by evolving learning theories and “21st Century” learner needs) such that student-instructor interaction is no longer critical. I think more likely that f2f and online courses are very different animals (though they are not always treated as such by instructors or students). Online courses have a number of specific dimensions of design and instruction that relate to their effectiveness. It may be that through careful course design and effective teaching strategies, online courses can reflect increased class size differently than face to face class size, reducing or even eliminating negative effects depending on the course.

Determining Optimal Class Size for Online Courses

Class size is not the sole predictor of teaching effectiveness in online environments; in “The Effects of Class Size on Effectiveness of Online Courses” Drago & Peltier cite five factors of teaching effectiveness: course structure, course content, instructor support and mentoring, instructor-student interaction, student-student interaction. Of these five they recognize only one as significantly and negatively impacted by class size: instructor-student interaction (31).

Though only one of five factors, instructor-student interacton is by no means a negligible dimension in online courses. Indeed, it may be more important to course effectiveness due to online learning’s larger transactional distance. The fact that students and teachers are rarely if ever in the same place at the same time may lead both to students and instructors to feel isolated, thereby reducing motivation. For students, transactional distance may have the added threat of making students feel unnoticed or unseen, a sense that may increase inclinations toward academic dishonesty. Transactional distance can be counteracted by increasing “presence” of instructor and students in the online environment.

The importance of presence and instructor-student interaction may vary from course to course. Every course is different, and courses and departments have different goals and outcomes to consider. Once we recognize this, we find questions that can help us determine optimal class size:

• Mentoring and feedback. Is learner success reliant on instructor-student interactions? Some courses thrive on learner interaction with informed and knowledgeable experts. If so, decreasing class size may increase instructor-student interaction.
• Teacher load. Do assessments require direct instructor review and feedback? Multiple-choice questions do not, but essay questions do. A course that can be accurately assessed with well-design multiple-choice questions may allow for a greater scale of students than one that needs one that requires more subjective review of individual assessments.
• Classroom community. Could an interdependent learner community support course objectives? If so, large class size may not be an obstacle, but a boon.
• Course curriculum. Are so-called “lower order” thinking skills (remembering, understanding) the focus of the course? This may allow for more objective assessments that can be automated, reducing instructor load.
• Course design. Is the course designed to provide rich, engaging content, relevant learning activities that help learners to take ownership of their learning? A well-designed course that encourages and supports learner independence is probably less reliant on class size for its effectiveness.
• Technology training. Is the instructor fluent with the technology? If s/he is capable of navigating the system rapidly and interacting with students using the best available tools, this may allow for more instructor-student interactions at less cost to their load.
• Course management. Has the instructor good online course management and time-saving strategies? Such strategies can reduce the load of online teaching, allowing instructors to facilitate more students.

Though these questions aim at the core issues of curriculum, course design, and teaching of online courses, they unfortunately are too subjective to predict real numbers for online class size. One must therefore base actual enrollment caps on experience, and it is here that we might as well look to f2f class size as a starting point. It is probably less harmful to students if class size starts as small as possible, increasing semester by semester as informed by both the student and the instructor experiences.

In doing so, here are some ideas to support student success in large online classes without overly taxing the instructor:

• Understand realistically how the online course impacts your faculty load.
• Do not write-off the students as “on their own” or think of Instead, build-in extensive support and maximize contact with students using discussion forums and mass e-mails.
• Invest in developing or implementing cohesive, dynamic, and engaging online course materials as a means of improving the online course overall.
• Train instructors to use the technology to their best benefit, thereby decreasing fear and frustration with the technology while reducing wasted time.
• Teach instructors course management strategies (Turoff & Hiltz) aimed at large courses.
• Shift responsibility for non-critical tasks (i.e. answering e-mail) from the instructor to graders or teaching assistants if possible.
• Leverage class size to the benefit of the students by growing communities of learners, e.g. through groups, peer assessments, etc.

I’m sure there are more ideas out there, and from folks with more experience with large class sizes than me. The real point of this posting is to foster the dialogue through which we might come to practical solutions.

References

• “Class Size – A Dangerous Discussion?” The TLT Group. Retrieved from http://www.tltgroup.org/ProFacDev/DangerousDiscussions/ClassSizeHome.htm
• Colwell, Joy. (2004). “The Upper Limit: The Issues for Faculty in Setting Class Size in Online Courses”. In Proceedings of Teaching Online in Higher Education 2004. Retrieved from http://www.ipfw.edu/tohe/Nov10.htm
• Drago, W & Peltier, J. (2004). The effects of class size on effectiveness of online courses”. Management Research News, 27(10) pp 27 – 41. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01409170410784310
• Online class size: Balancing quality and cost. (2000). Distance Education Report, 4(17), 3.
• Toth, L.S. (2002). “Class size and achievement in higher education: A summary of current research”. College Student Journal, 36(2) pp. 253-261.

This week students reported receiving this error:

ERROR: is already associated with another account. All accounts (including the admin account) must have an unique email address.

There’s obviously something missing from this error–the identifying/offending e-mail address! It turns out that though all students actually have a UVU-provided e-mail address, only staff/faculty addresses are sent through to LDAP. Since WPMU requires a unique e-mail address, this was a big problem. Thankfully it has a small and simple solution.

For our needs I found it easiest simply to modify WPMU LDAP (ldap_ro.php) to concatenate an e-mail address from the provided LDAP information if one was not already provided.

Paul Bearne on the WPMU LDAP list suggested a more holistic solution that is equally simple: prompt users to enter an e-mail address through a form field if LDAP does not provide one. I’m guessing Paul B. is going to script this into the plugin, but if not that’s a good task for me for some rainy Saturday, and another fine chance to give back just a little to the WPMU community that I ♥.

How do (students’ | faculty | staff) attitudes toward institutional learning and communication systems differ from attitudes toward informal learning and communication systems?

This isn’t nearly as relevant to the WPMU system as originally intended, but I do expect to be able to address the system through this survey without overwhelming participants. Some of the survey questions that pop into mind ask about personal use of social media, perceptions of institutional technology, relevance of both toward learning, perceived efficiency for learning, likelihood of using new institutional technology, etc.

I’m posting this here in case any readers (who I haven’t lost yet through neglect) have ideas on how to keep this useful while maintaining a sharp focus. Suggested questions are, of course, welcome.

First, I recommend you read Boone’s post, as I don’t want to re-state his exploration of both Gardner’s and John’s Open Ed 09 thoughts here. I think there is definite tension between individualism and communalism, especially in context of creativity. Such tension may be culturally inherited, or it may be endemic in our brains. I.e., we need to work in groups/tribe to survive; we want to claim individual power and perpetuate our own unique genes. It’s much deeper and richer than that.

…

As I sat in on John’s Thinkubator session I recalled how recently I had reluctantly agreed to author a full white paper collaboratively through Google Docs with a colleague. For a while we both were very sensitive to the other’s contributions–”do you mind if I enhance paragraph 10?” or “I’m going to rework your section on X, is that cool?” We were very courteously practicing the golden rule.

After a while, however, the insistence of the deadline and the necessity of coherence required us to abandon courtesy in favor of efficiency, and thus we diminished both of our individualizations of the article. We ended up with a decent article, produced in probably 75% (not half) of the time it would have taken just one of us to produce it. Do I feel like I own that document? No. Do I feel I co-own it? Yes. Do I want to take credit for it? Kind of, because in doing so I’m taking credit for someone else’s work, including their flaws. Did the structure of the project support our objectives? Yes, but I certainly wouldn’t adopt a collaborative approach for all, not even most, of the documents I author. I’d rather more closely tie my identity to my individual work, and that means making my exact contributions extricable from the original.

…

On a loosely related note, I was searching for an image for a presentation the other day, had exhausted CC licensed images on Flickr or Google, couldn’t find anything on the paid license site I subscribe to, and was seriously contemplating just stealing someone else’s IP. I should preface this by saying that CC and the availability of open-licensed works has allowed me to respect other people’s © IP more appropriately (OK, I know some of you want to pick the Copyleft fight with me, but some other time). But as I was looking at this ideal image, contemplating swiping it and using it, a shudder of confusion and regret came through me, and I realized, twenty years ago I wouldn’t have thought twice about appropriating the image.

No, I would not have just taken it.

I would have made my own.

Which led me to wonder, by refuting closed licensing, does openness provide a path that is “quicker, easier, more seductive”, yet diverts one away from creativity, innovation, and individual growth through distinguishing effort?

The internet is a rebel and a bully, threatening to destroy the established system of education that dictates how we learn. Shocked? Well, this is a good thing any way you look at it. The internet will transform the way you and I learn. It will provide a customized and individual learning experience. Okay, maybe the “internet” alone won’t start the revolution, but it definitely facilitates it. Producers of educational media content already provide fully customizable websites that utilize learning management systems that let you choose what you learn, when you want to learn it. … this means that you get more bang for your buck. Which is more than you can say for the “established” educational institutions that just bark out education in hopes that you’ll keep returning. The future of education online is bright. The things we do with the internet can transform education. It can transform the world.

…

Here is one scenario:

UVU gets rid of the physical school except for one building used to house administration and an office for each teacher. Each teacher is provided with computers, webcams, microphones and other equipment. The teachers now have resources to teach lessons live, record them, and archive them for students to view at a later time. Teachers also have virtual office hours where they can chat with students, they all use email, and have personal LMS tracking their own progress. (customized and specific to the school; and better than Moodle or Blackboard) Students collaborate online.

For those of us in ed tech, nothing here is really new, but there is a palpable frustration re. the absence of teachers’ use of very basic networked technologies. This is the future he’s talking about; when I was an undergrad over 12 years ago I wanted many of the same things! Speaking of being frustrated with teachers, what he said next really grabbed me:

[I] don’t think that enough effort is being put into developing the tools that would empower us as students…

The implication here should have been obvious: if the teachers are not satisfying the students needs, at the very least students should be given tools they need to empower themselves.

It was a gorgeously sweet-smelling rainy day, but I managed to bring
myself into the confines of a BYU classroom to attend David
Wiley's IPT 692R: Intro to Open Education. Today we're looking
at how an institution, BYU in particular, might approach institutional
policy and practice supportive of open licensing of teaching materials
and research publications. The conversation was shaped by
the context of MIT's model for both OCW and
open access.

Besides institutional pressure, what are incentives for faculty to opt
in (open licensing of teaching materials)?

• For BYU, incentive may be scriptural/doctrinal imperative to share
• Tap into the motivation to Do Good (Is it true that BYU fac/staff
  make _less_ than other institutions? To me, BYU seems so
  well-funded, and in some instances over-funded.)
• dissemination, reputation

Technology and Support Issues

Technology

• what system
• who pays
• who manages/hosts?

Support

• Who trains faculty, staff?
• Depositing where?
• Who pays?

• Source
  

• Who?

Concluding Thoughts and Questions

Justin: We need a raison d'etre. we do this as an
institutional community because…

Aaron: Do we anticipate a change in structure to facilitate and
support openness?

Dr. Wiley: We need to fully consider existing systems and see how they
might pipe in. Syllabus Builder, Learning Outcomes wiki

Dr. W: Should we require open syllabi? Institutional IP policy says
faculty own it; but institution would step in and claim nonexclusive
right to redistribute.

John: Sounds harsh. If you require me to, that strips away my agency.

JMS: That's agreed, but from a student-centered focus argument for
it wins.

Dr. W: We should argue that open is good because of pragmatic reasons,
not openness for the sake of openness. We'll have recommendations
for teaching practice (e.g. cost of textbooks, availability of open
resources)

Aaron: What are conflicts of interest?

Dr. W: Can't require students to adopt your textbook unless
you're selling more copies off-campus than on-campus.

Justin: For pragmatic reasons it makes sense to model our policies on
the successful approaches of other institutions, for example, MIT. No
need to be different just to be different.

Dr. W: Use our repository OR go your own way.

I mean, of course, with respect to appropriately licensed (Creative Commons, Gnu Free Document License, etc) open educational resources specifically.

And though the question is not staggering, it may be taken for granted, even at the cost of the long-term success of the web project.

Linking

The link approach typically uses hyperlinks to the target source document, but may use iframes to embed the element within a locally-hosted web page.

Linking…

1. preserves integrity of the original source by maintaining all original qualities
2. respects original source by trajecting traffic to the host site
3. saves local hosting resources (storage & bandwith)
4. ensures that source updates are reflected in the current version
5. is, therefore, particularly well-suited for frequently updated or improved sources, like wikis
6. is much easier, particularly when numerous multimedia files are embedded, or multiple files are referenced
7. may provide learners with context and hyperlinks that lead to further, relevant exploration of the source site and the web
8. avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict copying

Many of these arguments for linking presume that there is more to the information than the information itself, and that the source has some inherent value that may be passed on to the learners or should be maintained for its own sake.

Copying

The copy approach is similarly self-evident: a digital copy of the source file(s) is downloaded, then hosted on the local server.

Copying…

1. provides for adaptation or modification (if the license allows) of:
   • content (cut, insert, remix, extend)
   • presentation (e.g. surface design)
   • interactions
2. supports localization
3. captures and preserves a version that may be discarded or replaced in the future
4. allows designers to produce seamless learning experiences that support learner focus
5. respects original source host’s resources (storage & bandwith)
6. ensures technical availability of the resource is within local control (no dead links)
7. allows contextual indexing for site (or public) search engines
8. may improve reach and increase circulation of source information
9. may thereby enlarge original author’s prominence and visibility
10. avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict leech-linking

A couple notable obstacles to copying:

• Server-generated content, markup, interactions, or hyperlinks may be difficult to acquire or reuse (e.g.
• While CC By-ND allows reproduction of works, it may restrict modification of presentation or interactions in addition to the more clear prohibition on modification of content

Dynamic Scraping and Importing

There are other approaches that fall somewhere in between. For instance, web scraping of the source file(s) on the fly, followed by parsing and processing of the data on the local host. This sounds complex, but it’s not too bad; Google Docs & Spreadsheets has implemented this functionality into it’s data importing spreadsheet formulae:

• =importHTML grabs the content of a TABLE or list (OL / UL [/DL?])
• =importXML uses xPath expressions to target XML/XHTML elements
• =importData takes structured data files, such as comma separated values (CSV)
• =GoogleReader intakes the RSS or Atom of a target URL, such as a blog post

Often used for mash-ups, this approach can also be useful for replicating and formatting data. And, though Tony Hirst has found numerous exemplary applications for this feature using Google Spreadsheets, a Google Spreadsheet is not required; anyone with some significant Javascript experience could tackle this task, and there are a number of web scraping software apps that deliver varying results.