This was the first on-line class I have taken. I have taught several but never have taken one. It was valuable to experience how others conduct on-line classes as it has given me good ideas for my own class. I also discovered a new quiz maker technology as a result of my project that I will employ in my future on-line classes. So the class was very valuable to me ! Aurevior for now.....

College 2.0

The concept of College 2.0 offers a wealth of discussion. Let's begin with Web 2.0. Many universities are now offering complete on-line courses for free. More and more course content is going on-line which leads us to ask what will become of colleges and universities in the future? The price of one year of school at many private universities tops $50K ! I recently had a student in my office who told me she was able to enter the university with AP credits and since being here has taken 6 classes per semester. This is allowing her to graduate a half a semester early which will save her about $25K. She also told me her sister who graduated now is saddled with a $70K student loan and is pay $500 per month for the next 30 years to repay the loan ! Each year tuition increases anywhere from 2% - 4% but where does it stop. Tutition cannot continue to rise unchecked. Higher education appears to be one of the few industries where little seems to have been be done to curtail costs with cost increases passed along to the student in higher tuition rates. The basic format fo higher education essentially has not changed in hundreds of years. And left to their own this format would continue for hundreds more. What is driving a change is an ever increasing mobile consumer base desiring customized everything, including education. Universities are being forced to deliver what the consumer wants, imagin that. They are being forced to "make what sells" as opposed to "sell what they make". This later strategy has been the premis of most universities and the same one that resulted in the near demise of the US auto industry. As universities adopt to a demanding consumer base for customized, on-line education this raises the question, should on-line students pay the same price as a main campus student? These on-line students are not using facilities, not using space. It also asks what will the future campus look like? It also raises the question of what will the future classroom and campus resemble? The future classrom is likley to be a virtual classroom that requires a studio with cameras, perhaps a Smart Board and that's about it. What of the faculty? Can the future professor work solely as a contractor to be hired by a university by the course? Likewise, could a univeristy contract with the best faculty to deliver on-line courses, much like sports teams sign free agents? I beleive there is an interesting future in higher education that has yet to be defined.

College 2.0

The topic of College 2.0 is so intriguing and the implications so thought provoking I think the conversation could go on for years. There are so many avenues the topic can take. There are also so many degrees (no pun intended) of College 2.0. It's so thought provoking I am having difficulty organizing my thoughts around it.

Lets start with how College 2.0 might impact way a college traditionally operates. The format of education has not really changed for hundreds of years. A teacher stands in front of the class, instruction is given, homework assigned, etc... And this format takes place everywhere from the single room school house (by the way, I attended a two room school house when I was little) to the best universities in the world. Now College 2.0 comes along and all class material is on line. In fact, I don't even have to register at a university to look at the material. It's free for the taking. Entire courses and curriculums are now available that one can study from anywhere there's an internet connection. The implications go beyond evolutionary. What becomes of the college campus in the future? What becomes of the classroom in the future? I can envision a classroom with multiple screens on a wall, one screen for each student. I can envision standing in a much smaller room, perhaps not much bigger than my office, teaching to a class of 40 or 50 smiling faces on a screen. Lets take attendance. Attendance would be simple. If you are not logged on and your face not appearing on your screen you are not there. I can also envision not having a class at all. I can see a time where the professor just prepares a lecture for "prodution", much like an evening news cast.

How might this all work though? I can actually see a huge future demand for Instructional Designers and Graphic Designers because these individuals will become critical in the design of College 2.0 courses. If educational material is all free, how does the university make money? I suppose one possibility would be, if you want an actual, legitimate degree you would have to denmonstrate that you have satisfactory completed all the course materials, and then come up with $100K or so to pay for your diploma. But would this occur after the fact? I guess another question to contemplate would be, what becomes the Value of a formal diploma other than proof I satisfactorily completed all the materials?

Next Topic on College 2.0; Dealing with Rising Costs of Education and How Colege 2.0 Might Be the Answer

My lst post described a portion of the Coherence Principle which says that extraneous sounds, graphis/visuals and extraneous text should be avoided in e-learning. One mught think that providing a richer text to describe something would be better. But in the world of e-learning more is not better. There is considerable evidence that adding extra words/text interferes with learning in an e-learning environment.

However, what can improve learning with less text is another principle called the Modality Principle. The Modality Principle says that presenting words in audio format rather than on-screen text can result in significant learning gains (Clark & Meyer, 2011). Essentially, when the material being presented is complex, fast paced and/or contains graphics then audio text should be applied. If audio is not present then this type of course should be avoided for a good learning experience. Individuals have separate processing for visual and audio. Adding audio to the lesson relieves some of the overload on the visual so the individual can absorb more information than if just one mode of instruction is provided. People learn more deeply from multi-media lessons when words explaining concurrent graphics are presented as speech rather than as on-screen text.(Clark & Meyer (2011). The modality Principle applies only when there are graphics and text on the same screen.

Coherence Principle

There are several key principles found in e-learning. One of the primary principles is called the Coherence Principle. The Coherence Principle states that "all non-essential information in multimedia messages should be elininated ti minimise demands on cognitive resources" (Muller, Lee & Sharma, 2008, p 2111) One thing that many do not realize is, the dropout rate for e-learners is very high. There are estimats that the dropout rate for r-learners is 20 - 50 %, while other schools report that the drop out rae for e-learners is 10 - 20 percentage points higher than students who attend traditional classes. Because of this high dropout rate many instructors have tried to make their presenations more alluring or interesting by placing background music in their power point presntations. But research has proven this is a huge mistake. The advice of Clark & Meyer, 2011, is "don't do it". Learning is much deeper when there is no audio, i.e. sounds and music, are eliminated from e-learning (actually, learning in general). The difference is quite dramatic. In one study students were tested on how much they learned while listening to music and how much they learned without sounds and music. Students who did not have background noise such as music, outperformed students who had background noise by a range 61% - 141%. Another study compared quality of writing. Researchers looked at the quality of essays by students who listened to music versus students who had not listened to music. Although the quality of the essays was simliar, it took students who listened to music considerably longer to write the same quality essay as students in a quiet environment. In conclusion, in an e-learning environment leave the background noise out of your presentations. Soft background music may sound pleasant but only hurts the learning process. The same is true of all background sounds.

Graphics & Text

In the e-learning world the computer screen is our blackboard. It's our canvas on which people will learn from. So it reasons that we must be judicious in what we place on our student's blackboard. For example, Power Point is a frequent medium for on-line instruction. Research has shown that often people will create Power Point material for the e-learning environment and include a graphic to make the slide "look good". Graphics refers to images such as typical pie chart and bar charts but can also include diagrams, precedural maps, multi-media images, animations and so forth. But often the graphic that is included on the slide does nothing to add to the learning. In other words, if you are going to include a graphic in your content then it should contribute to the message you are trying to convey. Artisitic or "decorative" graphics generally do little or nothing to enhance the message that is attempting being delivered the learning. An example of this might be the following; suppose a presentation is trying to explain basic music theory and included in the slide presentation is an image of someone playing an instrument. The picture is just a decoration that serves no purpose in the instruction. The message here is your graphics need to contribute to the learning you are trying to convey.

Another question related to graphics is; do people learn better in an e-learning environment with just text or with text and graphics? Again research has shown that people learn better when graphics support the text. Many tests have been conducted that show people gain a deeper knowledge of material when there are graphics and text versus text alone. So one question you might be wondering, do people learn better from animations than from still images or graphics? Research has shown No, people do not learn better. You do not need fancy animations to get your point across. People were shown an animation and were shown still images. What was found was the brain puts all the images together and creates it's own animation. In fact, the still images caused the brain to work harder in what is called "active processing". Animation on the other hand resulted in Passive Processing. But this does not mean there is no use for animation. Animations are helpful in the right situations. Animations are very useful to convey "hands-on" procedures. The point is, unless animations are called for you do not have to go out of your way to create a flashy animated presentation to enhance learning. You can accomplish the same level of learning with far less expensive graphics/images.

We also have to consider our audience. Novice learners will almost require a mix of text and graphics if e-learning is to be effective with this group. Whereas, learners with more experience do not require as much of a mix. You might be able to design e-learning for more advanced learners with mostly text or mostly graphics.

Personal Learning Environments (PLE's)

I've been reading what I can on e-learning and it's potential. It's a personal interest of mine because I wonder what will become of education? How will education be administerd and what will the look of universities will be in the future?

So I was reading a paper about Personal Learning Environments (PLE's) by Graham Attwell. Attwell is a strong proponent of PLE's and believes PLE's will play an important role in the future of e-learning.

Now Let me flip to Yong Zhao who I agree 100% with Yong Zhao. Zhao said that education is about the individual person. That education is about "preserving the spirit" of the individual. (I am also 100% in agreement with Zhao in that I do not believe in the No Child left Behind policy or in standardized testing, but that's a different discussion). And Ibelieve this is what Attwell was probably getting at as well, that a the PLE is the "e-tool" of the future that allows for individualism in the "e-world" of learning.

I don't know if I am so convinced. I have a couple of thoughts on this. One of the great if not the greatest factors of learning is motivation. All the articles I have been reading talk about the wonderous applications that technology has provided students and will continue to provide. Look at all the things students can do, etc, etc...And I agree, the new technologies are amazing. But I have yet to read any discussion of motivation. Everyone assumes students willtake up the torch and drive their own education. Will students be motivated to self direct their own learning? Some students certainly will. The majority I might argue probably would not. The proponent might say but look how engaed students have become in schools with this technology. Look at how interested they are in learning with the new technology. I might say yes, but wouyld they be so engaged were it not for the teacher? Would a student create a PLE on their own and would they maintain it?

I might also say what are students really learning through PLE's or other e-learning methods. Herein lies a question. What kind of learning are we going after? One might argue that everything is learning. True, we learn to look both ways before crossing the street, we learn street smarts everyday which helps us get through life. We also learn mindless bits of interesting information which is learning. But are the "e-practices" in place for students to learn what they should be learning? Are students learning efficiently through e-learning? People are still trying to stake their claims in the value of each new technology that comes out. When talking movies were developed that was going to be the next great learning tool, when television was developed that was going to be the next great learning tool, and on and on. I don't think there is yet one correct way or that anyone has developed a correct way of delivering e-learning or what the best e-learning tools are. I think teachers and students are becoming bombarded with all sorts of new things to try and students are being left with a mish mash of e-learning applications to work with. One not proven any better than the next. I have no doubt that e-learning is the future of education. But for now e-learning has an identify crisis. It's a bit schizophrenic. Don't get me wrong, I am a strong propoent of e-learning. I am excited at the oppotunities it presents. I challenge some of the claims being made that a specific thing is the wave of the future....