K12 Open Ed

Formal ed vs DIY – Part 5, Assessment/Grading

(This is a part of a series on the differences and similarities between formal and informal adult learning.)

As far as I know, no P2PU course has a grading policy. To my mind, it would be somewhat antithetical to give participants grades. It flies in the face of self-directed learning to have an external judge make the decision on whether a participant has met the goals (and which goals? the course goals? the participant goals?).

If participants didn’t need externally-validated credits (e.g. teachers and CEUs), we’d probably never even have this discussion.

On the other hand, I understand that official credit cannot be given absent a determination of whether each participant has earned it.

What then could/should be used to assess student participation and learning? Here are some ideas.

Learner participation in discussions, collaborative projects, etc.
- time
- number of posts
- depth of participation
Contributions to peer learning
Accomplishment of course goals
- as set by participants?
- as assessed by participants?
- as assessed by peers?
- as assessed by facilitators?
- as assessed by outside assessors?
Completion of traditional assessment tasks, such as written papers, presentations, tests, etc.
- as assessed by participants?
- as assessed by facilitators?
- as assessed by outside assessors?

Only authentic assessments that reflect the achievement of course and participant goals seem useful to me. The challenge, I suppose, is coming up with assessments that meet both informal and formal requirements.

A popular suggestion is to use objective (“one right answer”) multiple choice questions to determine if participants have mastered course goals. These kinds of assessments have the advantage of being machine scoreable.

However, it is challenging if not impossible to create these types of questions to assess deeper learning.

How do you write multiple choice questions to assess these kind of learning objectives?

“Define what it means to learn deeply via web 2.0/social media.”
“Have a deeper understanding of what the Common Core State Standards say about writing to learn and writing in the disciplines.”
“Explain pros and cons of different methods of engagement within different frameworks.”

This is a tough one. Maybe my imagination or knowledge of psychometrics is too small.

Perhaps a bigger concern is eating our own dog food. If we are trying to reinforce deeper learning and authentic assessment, we must model those practices ourselves.

I think the obsession with these kinds of tests (and especially the ones in place in K-12 that test absurdly isolated factual knowledge) is the root of a lot of problems in education. How then can we ask the teachers we are hoping will step out of this model to take a multiple choice assessment themselves?

(After I wrote this, I read this article: Professors Cede Grading Power to Outsiders. Wow — so much to say about this. Think I’ll leave it for a future post though.)

NaNo and P2PU

NaNoWriMo and P2PU are two of my favorite projects. And as promised, I am bringing them together with two new P2PU writing groups: NaNoWriMo Prep 2012 (Oct.) and NaNoWriMo 2012 (Nov. the writing month).

In addition to being excited about the meeting of these two fabulous projects, this may mark a turning point in my work with P2PU. This is the first course (writing group, really) in which I’ll be adopting something more like what I think P2PU is meant for — a true collaborative peer group. It won’t be leader-led, and in fact, I think there will be little for me to do except play along with everyone else. (I’m counting on that, actually. :)

My other courses on P2PU have been much more traditionally structured courses. They’ve had things like syllabuses and unit-organized content. I’ve tried to make these courses centered on peer learning and collaboration, but frankly it’s not always worked that great. Participants have wanted a “teacher,” and the courses felt like courses. Not that that’s all bad. Sometimes I think a course is the right structure. But still I’ve felt like it wasn’t the real way P2PU was meant to work.

For the NaNo writing groups, all that will change. Also, sign-up is unlimited and unmoderated, something I’ve not done in the past and for good reason I think, but for these groups I think it’s just right.

In the past, I’ve thought the whole MOOC idea was flawed. How can you build community or maintain any kind of quality learning experience with thousands of participants? But for this writing group…I can actually imagine how it could work. I hope we get hundreds of participants so we can try it out.

It might work or it might not, but it will definitely be a learning experience. And NaNo and P2PU are such fun anyway that how can we go wrong?

So if you’ve ever wanted to write a novel and have a little time in November, join us! It will be fun and rewarding. I promise.

Formal ed vs DIY – Part 4, Seat Time

(This is a part of a series on the differences and similarities between formal and informal adult learning.)

I know you’ve all been waiting for this one. ;)

This is a conundrum online courses have puzzled over for a long time. How do you estimate how many hours per week a course might take? For a very organized and focused learner (or one who doesn’t apply himself), it might take less time. For a particularly inquisitive and extra hard working learner (or one who is just slow), it might take more time.

It is difficult to estimate and impossible to measure or nearly impossible verify after the fact. So most online courses take their best guess, and then credit is given for that amount of time.

A bigger question is should seat time be such an important factor in granting credit?

Some groups, like Western Governors University, have experimented with competency-based criteria. Have those models worked? Is it feasible to do this on a large scale?

For K-12, seat time is the rule. Kids attend x number of hours of school and then move on. Repeat. Repeat. The idea of competency-based learning in K-12 is a model many of would like to see. Stop constraining students to age-based grade levels. Let them move through content at a pace that works for them. Supported differentiation and elimination of pacing would be a real way to make sure no child was left behind.

For P2PU,the process is all about individual learning. It’s all about gaining competence in your chosen area in a way that you define.

Does issuing credit put a crimp in this? I’m not sure.

Spotify – free and legal

The other day when I was talking to kids about copyright and open content, we had an interesting conversation about Spotify, which none of the kids had heard of. (!)

My perception of Spotify, prior to doing more research, was that it was a) legal way to download music for free. Good, contemporary music.

That’s pretty close to true. Except for the download part. Spotify has secured the rights for all the music it offers, and it is a very comprehensive list. (I’ve found previously unknown CDs of contemporary bands that I love there, so the marketing angle is working for me.) In the free version of Spotify, the music is all streamed. With wireless getting pretty prevalent, I’m not sure that really matters, especially since it’s fast, much faster than iTunes.

Like many other “free” services, there are also pay versions of Spotify, but the company claims that a large number of free users is key to its strategy. (I know; we’ve heard that before, only to see free options suddenly vanish, but Spotify does have years of track record in Europe.) The revenue model is largely based on ads, which play periodically in the free version. You can pay for premium versions that get rid of the ads or that allow downloads.

It’s not yet clear whether this model works, whether it’s fair to artists, etc. but I think that a free and legal way to download music can only be good.

A sharing economy

I did one of my sessions with school kids today about copyright, open content, and sharing.

I’m highly prone to diversions during these conversations, which I enjoy quite a bit. We often talk about things like how laws are made, lobbyists, Limewire, inheritance issues, the pluses and minuses of Wikipedia, and more. Sounds like fun, huh? :)

The music industry always provides a great springboard for conversations on these topics, and today was no exception. At some point, I asked these high school kids if they’d seen bands that have music that you could download for free if you want or pay if you want. Most had.

“So do you think anyone ever pays for this?” I asked.

Raucous laughter resulted. Of course not, they roared.

“Well, I’ve actually paid for music on a site like that.”

They rolled their eyes, undoubtedly wondering what kind of crazy guest speaker their teacher had arranged.

Then I asked them why someone like me might pay for something they could get for free. Mostly, they had no idea, but we eventually managed to come up with some ideas, like wanting to support the artists or thinking that the quality of the product merited compensation.

Taking this a step further, I asked if they had heard about Panera Bread’s pay-optional restaurants, where the idea is that people pay as little or as much as they can. They hadn’t and thought I was joking. This is an interesting social experiment, and we went on to speculate about whether a system like this could work from a business standpoint, in addition to providing societal benefits. (This is exactly the kind of discussion that I fear will generate parent calls to the school the next day, but so far, so good.)

Can you imagine a world in which major segments are on a pay-what-you-can/want basis? Hmmm….