Sample Limericks

Three sample limericks for my composition students...

Limerick #1

I had to admit to them winningIf not I´m afraid I´d be sinningThe Cardinals had flownA season they´d blownThe Cubs and their fan´s keep a spinning 

Limerick #2

A ball and a bat hit the groundThe pitch which sank down was quite soundA runner quite fastthe throws that went pastThe bunt turned the team all around

Limerick #3

Alone by himself in a crowdHis head was above all the cloudsIt suddenly cameThere was no-one to blameThe ball rushed right by and he bowed

Five Ways to Flip the Classroom That Aren't "Personalized"

I continue my argument (see here, here, and here) against using the term "personalized instruction".  This post was inspired by Franklin´s 5 Ways to Personalize Instruction.

1.  Getting to know your students vs. get to know your students.

An instructor never truly gets to know her students.  Instead of thinking dichotomously, consider the act of getting to know someone in terms of degree.  Finding ways to flip a classroom is all about getting to know one's students; flipping the classroom is not an all-or-nothing endeavor, but one viewed in terms of degree

2.  Applying an evidence-based instruction approach underpins the flipped classroom experience.

By using plenty of formative assessment, engagement between instructor and student provides the basis for instruction that serves the needs, interests, and learning preferences (as opposed to learning styles) of each student.  Evidence based on observation frames how much instruction is didactic or facilitative.  Thus, in a flipped classroom environment, one is likely to see instruction potentially emerge from any individual, any place, and at any time.

3. Adapting and adopting leads to flow.

In a flipped classroom, the instructor and students adapt and adopt to content, technologies, and to each other as learning outcomes and learning objectives align.

4. Utilizing performance tasks bridges learning outcomes to learning objectives.

A performance task that maintains an authentic goal, student roles, audience, situation, purpose, and standard of outcomes is best served when it precedes instruction.  In a flipped classroom, technologies afford learners greater opportunities to participate in performance tasks that are more authentic (serve a common good).

5. Technologies should facilitate, not frustrate.

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) should be purposeful and quickly adoptable for teachers and students.  However, sometimes, less is more.

A simple analogy: Google Play's Listen Now takes my play history and makes recommendations (but does not personalize my listening experience).  Sometimes these recommendations are useful while other times they are not.  Most of the time I simply search for tunes (adapt) or just stick to my current playlist (adopt).  So, I do not have to use all of the options from Google Play to get the most out of my own personal listening experience. Notice how personal listening experience is not the same as a "personalized listening experience".

ICTs (in whatever form) should help the instructor and learner become more autonomous (i.e.,  becoming more interdependent) by engaging in content and with other individuals.

Conclusion

Not any of the five points listed above have anything to do with "personalized instruction".  Take point #2 as an example.  In order to personalize instruction, there would need to be one form of instruction for each student that would somehow be within the control of the instructor (teacher).  "Personalized instruction" is impossible, but personalized learning is totally possible (and expected) since this shifts an external locus of control to an internal locus of control (from the learner's perspective).  Thus, Instructors help learners better understand their personal learning networks by helping them become more autonomous.

When it comes to instruction, teachers have an obligation to help learners make decisions about the content, processes, products, and environments that relate to learning outcomes - otherwise known as differentiated instruction.  Differentiating instruction involves the students throughout the educative experience by allowing them some degree of choice.  Empowering students by improving the decision-making processes is the foundation for 1) getting to know students better, 2) providing evidence-based instruction, 3) adapting and adopting flow, 4) aligning performance tasks (assessments) to learning objectives (curriculum), and 5) recognizing that sometimes less is more when it comes to ICTs as human behavior is complex.

 

 

A Flipped Learning Design For Foreign Language Learners

Attribution

This semester I am teaching a third-semester composition class for English language teachers in training and the following three classes for university professors: Content and English Language Learning I (CELL I), Content and English Language Learning II (CELL II), and Academic Writing.  This is how I am flipping the learning design in terms of structure, readiness levels, and critical thinking.

Structure

Course content for all four courses are hosted publicly in Microsoft OneNote: Composition,  CELL I, CELL II, and Academic Writing.  The reason for using OneNote - as opposed to Moodle or any other learning or content management system - is because of its ease of use.  I can easily add and manipulate content using any device (Macbook Air, iPad, and iPhone), anytime from anywhere, and share this information either privately or publicly as well.  Sharing content and the learning experience publicly has particular relevance this semester as I am making a special effort to provide opportunities for learners to share their own learning experiences with those outside their given class.  As their instructor, I too am able to share openly what I am doing and reflect on my own teaching practice by creating affordances for collaboration and cooperation.

In addition to using OneNote, Microsoft Word Online is used in Composition and Academic Writing so that text revisions can be shared amongst the learners and me.  Links to learners' Word online document are included in OneNote so that everyone can not only see each others approach to the writing process and but also see how I provide feedback to everyone and how subsequent changes are then made.

Since OneNote serves mainly as a content management system, Facebook complements the learning experience by providing both synchronous and asynchronous forms of communication.  For example, the Composition facebook page, CELL facebook page, and Academic Writing facebook page allow learners to engage in the content mainly outside of class, but also face-to-face when such interactions promote course objectives.  More immediate content is shared in facebook (publicly) which can either come from the content in OneNote, or when it is new content, may be added simultaneously to OneNote.  Thus, content in OneNote is structured more chronologically or thematically while facebook is structured more to emphasize certain content or to engage learners around certain content through discussions and critical thinking.

In Composition, CELL I, and CELL II, e-portfolios are used for housing specific products learners complete in class.   Learners become recognized for how they demonstrate their understandings, knowledge, skill sets, and dispositions through the presentation of artifacts that positions themselves as professionals.  An e-portfolio becomes part of an online identity that illustrates where the professional has been, where the professional is currently, and what the professional wishes to become.

In summation, OneNote and Word is the "playground" the "laboratory", the "sandbox", etc. where initial learning occurs, primarily via private communications between learner-instructor and possibly learner-learner.  Facebook extends the learning experience more publicly by opening up the conversation more fluidly with others potentially beyond the classroom.  Finally, e-portfolios is the end result, the final objective of the learning process as everything within the learning structure leads to this final destination.

Readiness Levels

The mixed abilities classroom is the norm and not the exception.  Invariably, learners will enter the learning design at different levels of content knowledge and different levels of linguistic prowess.  So the structure mentioned above is designed to account for this reality.

All four courses above have a face-to-face component: Composition and Academic Writing are both face to face while CELL I and CELL II are blended learning courses.  But the approach to flipping the classroom for each of the courses is similar.

Making content available publicly online for learners taking a face-to-face class takes into consideration the readiness levels from two main perspectives.  First, content made available before a face-to-face session affords the learner to interact with content much in the same way most view the flipped classroom when lectures are recorded and accessible outside of the classroom.  And second, content can be added or accessed to online spaces after learners meet face to face when such information warrants it.  For instance, followup tutorials might help fill in the gaps created during live classes, additional links to different kinds of content might result, and internal instruments like learner surveys might shed light on how learners perceive the overall educative experience.  More than likely, some combination of pre-/post-loading and accessing of content to an online environment will emerge depending on individual readiness levels that are revealed as personal learning preferences.  Understanding how and why students are accessing content is a constant goal of mine in order to better assess if the structure of the learning design is serving a purpose.

Critical Thinking

The structure of how content is arranged and understanding how learners are accessing course content based on readiness levels underpin how critical thinking emerges.  Learners access content by listening and reading and create by speaking and writing.  Critical thinking emerges by giving them certain freedoms in how and why they access content and where they end up creating their own content for specific purposes.  Critical thinking is creating content associated with the what, how, why, where, with whom etc. that goes beyond simply meeting course objectives.  Learners who become more aware of the what, how, why, etc. of their content creations are better positioned to solve and set problems, resolve cognitive conflict, make associations or connections between the abstract and concrete, and form logical arguments, to name a few.  At the end of the day, the way that I structure my learning design is based on the readiness levels of my learners which together with structure provide an overarching purpose to think critically given changing situations.  A flipped learning experience in my view has always been a more nuanced approach to content accessibility and learner interactions where interdependence grows through thoughtful instructor interventions primarily on an as-needed basis.

As intentional as all of this sounds, there is a larger incidental aspect to this entire learning design that would be best left for another post.  But these are a few thoughts that I have regarding the flipped classroom, and am always interested in learning how others approach similar learning designs under different contexts.

How can a diagnostic test determine "fossilization"?

 

I read today Why do we produce ESL students with fossilized errors and what can we do about it? and had a few thoughts. 

1. When I read "fossilized error" (term used in quotation marks), I suppose that Jagasia does not really accept the term, but uses it anyway given that others have come to define the term a certain way in the past? Later the term is not in quotation marks that would suggest that it is an accepted term?
2. The thesis of this piece seems to have less to do with "fossilization" and more to do with 1) feedback and assessment, 2) differentiated instruction (DI), and 3) potential issues with the placement test in terms of validity, reliability, and/or bias. So, to answer the first question from the title would include more to do with feedback, DI, and diagnostic test validity, reliability, and unbias than some notion of "fossilization". These were issues not covered in the piece.
3. Regarding point #2, in the absence of any real example, it is hard to support the idea that just because a student has a tutor (e.g., italki, Verbling, etc.) that "fossilization" is less likely.  To understand "fossilization" is to observe a language learner longitudinally and not necessarily the individual learning spaces where learning (or lack thereof) takes place.  Another way to state this is that observations (to understand "fossilization") need to be understood from a diachronic versus synchronic lens. 
4. The problem that this piece sets out to address is not clear.  Jagasia (2016) states, "Almost every student who sits our placement test possesses a significant amount of ingrained or "fossilized" errors" (para. 2). Again, how can a single diagnostic exam (synchronically) measure fossilization presumably before the fact?  Perhaps the assumption is if a language learner is taking a more advanced level class but is still making lower-level errors that this automatically means that "fossilization" occurs.  Intuitively, one can see the weakness of this argument when considering other possibilities: 1) learners acquire the language at different rates, 2) learners had little-to-no exposure to a grammatical structure, 3) learners had little-to-no practice in moving understandings from short term to long term memory, 4) the error could have be a "slip of the tongue" or a mistake that the learner really understands but carelessly overlooked, 5) personal circumstances that would interfere with concentration during the test, 6) simply a poor test taker, 7) poor alignment between diagnostic test and instruction, 8) poor alignment between diagnostic test and assessment, 9) poor alignment between curriculum and diagnostic test, etc. 

Forgetting the term "fossilization" for a moment, how students make mistakes (whether repeatedly or in isolation) cannot be viewed entirely from a single diagnostic test.  It seems for Jagasia (2016) as if the diagnostic test is detecting issues of instruction or assessment?  To understand how students make mistakes requires observations that occur over time in terms of how feedback is given and received and requires test designers to recognize the integrity of the instrument and its purpose.

What is Reflection?

Attribution

Taking any single definition of what the term reflection is will likely be incomplete and will miss the emergent aspects of the human experience.   However, looking at some definitions helps to get started…

1.the act of reflecting or the state of being reflected.

2.an image; representation; counterpart.

3.a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration.

4.a thought occurring in consideration or meditation.

5.an unfavorable remark or observation.

6.the casting of some imputation or reproach.

7.Physics, Optics. a) the return of light, heat, sound, etc., after striking a surface; b) something so reflected, as heat or especially light (Dictionary.com).

Based on this group of definitions, the following offers a slightly more accurate definition of reflection as it relates to teaching and learning.

A carefully considered mental representation of some past, current, or future critical instance that comes from a personal - yet shared - experience.   

Let’s unpack:

• A carefully considered mental representation: From a cognitive standpoint, it all begins with what one recognizes in the mind, and that this mental representation emerges after having a deliberate recollection, regardless whether this representation is clear or vague.  From a connectivist lens, this “mental representation” is instead referred to as a recognizable pattern of individual nodes that cognitively form, strengthen, weaken, and lose associations.  More accurately, these cognitive connections are black boxed in that the appearance of a single or fixed entity (a single mental representation in this case) instead consists of a more dynamic and fluid (complex) set of associations that remain in continual flux (Latour, 1987).  A mental representation might more accurately be referred to as an aggregate set of cognitive and biological nodes that have both diachronic and synchronic attributes.  This latter definition is more cogent when considering the social aspects of reflection explained below.


• ... of some past, current, or future…: Simply one can reflect on past, current, and/or future events.


• ... critical instance…: A critical instance is some experience that stands out, for better or for worse.  It is some experience worth remembering.


• ... that comes from a personal, yet shared, experience: The shared experience that helps form the mental representation is meant to show perspectival and interpretive variations from individuals sharing a common lived experience.  Also, a reflection initially is inherently personal, but should at some point become articulated to others so that the individual can then experience these perspectival and interpretative variations.  A feedback loop ensues between the original mental representation and the feedback from others to the degree that either changes to the initial mental representation will result or will reinforce the initial representation, forming stronger associations between nodes.

So, reflection begins as a cognitive process then subsequently leads to a social-cognitive process, connecting the ideational (i.e., ideas, concepts, opinions, beliefs, etc.) with the physical (i.e, materials, objects, technologies, etc.) and the human (i.e., human relationships).  Albeit complex, a connectivist viewpoint would simply state that a connection exists between the cognitive, biological, material, and human aspects of the lived experience when recalling personal reflections based on personal observation and interaction.

References

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Student E-Portfolios for Future and Current Teacher Practitioners

I am working this week in putting ideas together about student e-portfolios (for English language teacher trainers).  Any comments that you might have about student e-portfolios are greatly appreciated!


https://sway.com/s/LVHO109GkBhkysjQ/embed

Establishing Expectations Around APA and Plagiarism

Attribution

On Monday, July 25, 2016, I will be discussing with our academia expectations we have around APA and plagiarism related to academic writing essays throughout the BA in English language teaching program.  The session will be recorded and subsequently uploaded to this post.

Permalink to Presentation

What is a Personal Learning Network?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmBNNHcxPc]

A personal learning network (or PLN) consists of ideas, materials, and social relationships.  Each of these three elements cannot be described in the absence of the other two.  For example, I cannot talk about Twitter being part of my PLN without understanding the relationship Twitter has with the ideas I share and to whom I share those ideas.

How many times have you heard educators of 1:1 schools ask, "Now that I have an iPad, what do I do with it?" Any one of the three elements of a PLN cannot be taken out of context when determining its meaning.  Materials, such as technologies, can be  expressed in terms of environments, places, and spaces, as well as any related objects that make up those environments, places, and spaces.  New technologies are constantly being introduced to the public, but they become no more or less important than the ideas and social relationships that make up the holistic set of associations.  Thus, there is an iterative and reciprocal dynamic between ideas, materials, and individuals that continually impact each other to the degree they remain connected.  Being connected emerges when a change or the existence of one (ideational, material, or human) node causes a synchronous or asynchronous change in another.  To understand any one of the three elements of a PLN (an idea, technologies, or human relationship) is to understand this three-way association from both a diachronic and synchronic standpoint. 

A PLN is not constructed, built, nor created. Nor does it grow, develop, nor flourish.  It does not start from nothing to become something.  It is and will always be present. 

What has changed over the years is the way individuals communicate, and how they communicate can best be described as having an understanding of the complexity of a PLN.  This understanding emerges by asking two separate but related questions: 1) How has my PLN changed over time? And 2) What does my PLN currently look like?

A PLN is inherently personal to the degree the individual has autonomy in making decisions about how ideas, materials, and human relationships come together.  Any barriers that hinder ideas, materials, and human relationships will ultimately impede one's PLN.

The ideational, material, and social relationships that connectively form a PLN are both causes and effects.  Each is a result of something happening before it and each is a potential cause for something happening after it.  Similarly, a PLN as a connective whole acts as both a cause and an effect.

A PLN is both intentional and incidental.  An individual will purposefully use a PLN for some sought after goal, but will also recognize the frequency of ideas, materials, and social interactions that cannot be anticipated.  An awareness of one's situated PLN leverages the potentiality of intentional and incidental learning, and offers insights into how they each relate to one another. 

Earlier, I mentioned that a PLN is not constructed, built, nor created. Nor does it grow, develop, nor flourish.  But what a PLN does do is adopt and adapt to a degree on its own and to a degree based on autonomous decision-making that occurs from the individual.  The individual sets out to  _adopt_ and _adapt_ a PLN in order to become more _adept_.

Intentional vs. Purposeful Learning

Taking OpenFlip Spring 2016 (#openflip) provided an opportunity to reflect and share my ideas about intentionality and its roles in education. Last night I watched a Netflix documentary about Tony Robbins, I Am Not Your Guru. This morning I listen to Self-Confidence Matters: "I Determine School (Student) Success", specifically towards the end of the podcast where Baruti Kafele speaks briefly about intentionality. Having done all three continues to solidify my thoughts around how the idea of intentionality is being used in the field of education.

One of the four pillars of the flipped classroom addresses the idea of intentional content by stating,

Flipped Learning Educators continually think about how they can use the Flipped Learning model to help students develop conceptual understanding, as well as procedural fluency. They determine what they need to teach and what materials students should explore on their own. Educators use Intentional Content to maximize classroom time in order to adopt methods of student-centered, active learning strategies, depending on grade level and subject matter.

One of the best things that I got out of taking OpenFlip Spring 2016 was the realization that basing the flipped classroom mindset on intentional content 1) places too much emphasis on content and not enough on the realities (complexity) of learning and 2) ignores the role of incidental learning as a necessary counterpoint to intentional learning. Content (whether intentional or incidental) is only a potential enabler to intentional and incidental learning that both co-exist in any dynamic, purposeful, educative experience.

Regardless as to how you view Tony Robbins, the documentary illustrates how intentional and incidental learning come together for a purpose. There is a clear purpose for each of the six days that Robbins dedicates to his followers, and his plans for each day are well-thought out and can change based on what had previously transpired. So his events are clearly purposeful, with a lot of aspects to the experience being intentional (e.g., content, physical environment, and social relationships). But during the event, much of what he does cannot be anticipated. Many testimonials (I.e., experiences, understandings, perspectives, etc.) shared by the attendees are unexpected (i.e., incidental). This provides the backdrop into making those experiences, understandings, perspectives, etc. revealing for not only the audience member but also for other audience members by linking the testimonial back to the goals for that particular day or event (i.e., intentional). Coupling incidental occurrences with intentional occurrences is what good teaching is all about. Educators can anticipate student mistakes, but there are still many more that are unanticipated. Knowing what to do about unanticipated learning that can occur in the (flipped) classroom is key.

Kafele's point about students walking into an "intentional" classroom is noteworthy, but he appears to be contrasting this kind of classroom with an "arbitrary" classroom experience.

I would use a slightly different vocabulary, since I view "arbitrary" not synonymous with "incidental".

Students need to enter into a purposeful classroom each day - there needs to be a reason for coming to class. Within a purposeful learning context, students and teachers co-adopt and co-adapt by understanding the intentional and incidental learning that can emerge, which should ultimately transform learners based on curricular and individual goals. There is nothing arbitrary about this process.

A flipped classroom mindset needs to embrace the complexity of intentional and incidental learning from ideational, material, and social perspectives so that decisions about content, process, and product can form a more educative experience for each learner.

An "Argument" for the Traditional Lecture

An "Argument" for the Traditional Lecture

Gross-Loh (2016) argues (kind of) in Should Colleges Really Eliminate the College Lecture? for the traditional lecture and greater training to professors for improving public speaking skills. I have gone through the piece and have tried to outline parts of the argument that seem incoherent, along with some perspective as well.

Traditional Lecture as an Endangered Species

The first line of reasoning the author makes is as follows:

• R1: A lack of training exists among university professors to give good traditional lectures.
• R2: Although there is a focus on training professors to improve teaching skills, such training focuses more on flipping the classroom (and related technologies) than on the traditional lecture.
• C: This, in part, is why "the lecture...is endangered" (para. 2).

This line of cloudy reasoning is a formal fallacy. First, saying that there is the wrong kind of teacher training which focuses on flipping the classroom does not mean there is a lack of training in the right kind of training needed to give traditional lectures in the classroom. Flipped classroom training certainly could focus on producing traditional lectures that are effective and providing these as recordings to students asynchronously. There is nothing in the piece about what kind of lectures are being recorded and how traditional (or non-traditional) these forms of lectures are within a flipped classroom approach. So, to jump to the conclusion that the lecture is "endangered" seems a stretch. Gross-Loh does go however into some level of detail about the lack of training in public speaking among professors, but because it unnecessarily contrasts the notion of a flipped classroom, it certainly seems probable that a traditional lecture (that meets the author's standards) could be recorded, produced, and made available to learners outside of the classroom experience. If the author feels that a worthwhile traditional lecture has to be delivered face to face, then this is a different argument entirely...one not being made in this piece.

Getting the Question Right

Later in the article, the question is posed: "...is it the college lecture itself that’s the problem—or the lecturer" (para. 5)?

In problem solving, often it is about getting the problem established that becomes the intellectual exercise. Similarly, sometimes getting the question right is more important than ever being able to truly answer it. What additional insight can be made when separating the performance (i.e., the lecture) from the person (i.e., the professor)? The question in the article can be separated into two empty notions: 1) There is no problem with the professor, but the lectures are a big problem. or 2) There is no problem with the lectures, but the professor is a big problem. I do not see the need to entertain this question.

Training Means Performing Means Learning

The author states,

...although proponents of the movement to move away from the lecture cite data on its ineffectiveness, the debate has failed to take into account the fact that academics are rarely, if ever, formally trained in public speaking.

Another fallacy of sorts...Even if training automatically enables the professor to become a good public speaker, being a good public speaker does not necessarily mean an educative experience for the learners. Public speaking does not always equate to comprehensible input. This is the underlining premise that I cannot subscribe to. Learning has more to do with what the students do than what the teachers do.

The author goes on to say,

The lecture was a highlight of my own education,” Molly Worthen, a University of North Carolina (para.14).

Here, the author provides evidence of linking the traditional lecture with active learning, which seems out of place within the overall thesis of the article. In fact, this is where I asked myself, what is the main thesis of this piece? Is it that professors lack public speaking skills? Is it that professors lack the training to implement dynamic lectures that mix the traditional lecture with active learning? Should a flipped classroom approach be part of this training or not?

Flipping is Elitist

There is a lot to the concept of a ‘flipped classroom,’ but it is also very much an elite-institution idea,” says Hacsi, referring to a model in which students view lectures outside of class and focus on homework elements inside of it (para. 17).

So here the argument is that expecting students to work outside of the classroom is "elitist" because many students have to work their way through college. Thus, only the privileged few (society's greatest) who can afford to go to school and not work could ever have enough time to devote to assignments required outside of class.

As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), students are still required to complete course assignments outside of class. So given this assumption, if anyone fails to see how a flipped classroom provides an equitable educative experience to many (both to credit and noncredit-seeking students alike) - the polar opposite of an elitist viewpoint - then more research needs to be conducted before one chooses to write about it in any intelligible way.

This post leaves me confused as to what the overall thesis actually is. Removing any mention of the flipped classroom, I am unable to disagree with many points if presented separately. But the way the ideas are organized as a whole leaves me confused as to what the author is really getting at.

I present my views in hopes someone can shed light on the overall mean of the original post and/or my interpretation of it.

Defining MOOCs...if we must

MOOC Definitions

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) published Making Sense of MOOCs: A Guide for Policy Makers in Developing Countries (2016) where they define the term, Massive, Open, Online Course (MOOC). They preface the definition by admitting that how one defines the term is open to interpretation, and go on to state that their approach in reaching a definition was to consider a variety of prior definitions first, then present commonalities in ascertaining what they mean by massive, open, online, and course (p. 17). Since defining a MOOC is open to interpretation, I offer an alternative definition after presenting how UNESCO and COL define each of the four facets. I include italicized text where I feel there are shortcomings in UNESCO/COL's interpretation and attempt for mass appeal. When planning, implementing, and evaluating a MOOC, definitions do matter, but admit that reaching a consensus about a single definition is not all that important. My thoughts on the matter are what crosses my mind when I am confined to using such a nebulous term.

The itemized list below is how UNESCO and COL define massive, open, online, and course (p. 17):

• Massive: designed for, in theory, an unlimited number of participants. This means that the course is designed such that the effort required to provide all services does not increase significantly as the number of participants increases.
• Open: access to the course is free, and there are no entry qualifications.
• Online: the full course is available through the Internet (using a laptop or desktop computer, a tablet computer or a smartphone).
• Course: the offering is a course, meaning that it offers a complete learning experience — i.e., it is structured around a set of learning goals in a defined area of study and includes the course materials, assessment tools such as quizzes, feedback, an examination and a certificate of completion.

I particularly like how they define online when they say the course is available through the Internet and not that it is necessarily delivered through the Internet (although it often is). But I view the other three definitions from a slightly different perspective. I define each and then provide a rationale as follows:

• Massive: The course is designed to be scalable; it has less to do with an actual number of participants and more to do with the potential to educate. The course is designed such that the effort required to deliver the course does not increase significantly as the number of participants increases. Rationale: A MOOC, even in theory, is not designed for an unlimited number of participants based on much of my explanation related to the term course (see below). One should not expect that a MOOC of any kind provide all services to the educative experience, even if the term all services could possibly be defined. Trying to come up with a magic number that defines "massive" misses the point: MOOCs are scalable when it comes to the potential of having a larger number of participants interact without changing much in the way the course is planned and implemented (from a learning design perspective). Of course the implementation of the course (from the learner's perspective) will vary greatly when more participants are engaged, but it does not relate to the effort course designers or instructors put into the course per se. The higher number of participants, the higher learning potential, and the greater level uncertainty or variation into types of assessment and engagement. Uncertainty and variation depend on the degree of prestige and power potential (as social networking concepts) course creators have with the target audience.
• Open: like any open educational resource (OER), access to the course and any subsequent engagement throughout the course may be "retained, reused, revised, remixed, and redistributed" by anyone (p. 20). Rationale: The term free (as in free beer) is irrelevant because learners may still participate in a MOOC but pay a fee in order to receive more direct feedback (e.g., as one might expect in formal education situations) or they may not pay for the course and rely on emergent feedback that is more dependent on the learner's personal learning network (PLN). Feedback (i.e., formative and summative assessment) coming from a learner who pays for the course usually comes from an educator from an institution who then accredits the learner for having participated in a MOOC, likely engaging with other accrediting and non-accrediting learners alike. The attributes of a MOOC are independent to whether the learner pays for the course or not. Also, stating that there are "no entry qualifications" is misleading if 1) the learner needs to take the course and get accredited (when receiving accreditation is for a fee); 2) the learner fails to have the appropriate readiness level or prior knowledge to begin or to complete the course; 3) the learner does not have the technological wherewithal to access a course available online (e.g., Internet connection, hardware, software, etc.); or 4) the learner does not have the appropriate habit of mind (or metacognitive skill sets) necessary to begin or complete the course (e.g., navigating course content, online engagement, etc.). Depending on the target audience, these considerations may need to be addressed at the beginning of the course in order to make entry qualifications explicit.
• Online: Course is available publicly online. Rationale: Fine for a general definition but would need to be clearer depending on the context. Some discussion of blended or blended online learning would more than likely be necessary and would directly link to the entry qualifications mentioned above.
• Course: the offering is a course, meaning that it has a set of course objectives around a particular domain that includes either a recommended or required (synchronous and/or asynchronous) timeframe to complete learning outcomes. Rationale: Of the four facets, this is the one that misses the mark the most. In no way is a MOOC a "complete learning experience". When compared with the learner designer, there is greater potential for the learners themselves to create an educative experience by using a PLN for a particular learning purpose within the context of the MOOC. The learning experience comes from learner decisions (based on both course and personal learning objectives) as to how to interact with the content and with others; it does not come from instruction and differs from differentiating instruction. And a MOOC does not inherently include all course materials and assessment. Course materials used in a MOOC come from learner decisions to one's PLN and may or may not be part of any course content provided by learning designers. And assessment relates to the rationale provided above under open. Assessment for non-accredited learners will depend a lot on how the learner interacts within the individual's PLN, and subsequently will receive forms of assessment on a complete voluntary basis (presumably formative assessment over summative assessment). Assessment for accredited learners (who usually pay a fee) is typically more adopted and adapted to the learner's needs, wants, and hopefully learning preferences, and although should include good amounts of formative assessment can be assured to receive some form of summative assessment. Calling this kind of educative experience a course though does not mean that all forms of assessment are inherent or guaranteed which could be a reason for the low completion rate around MOOCs.

If one is to make sense of MOOCs, then one needs to understand what it is under the particulars that make up the educative experience. For me, it's still all about SCHOOL!

Photo attribution

Learning within a formal educational context

The following was a short response to Measurement, Magic, and Balance...

In a formal education context, assessment depends a lot on the written and taught curriculum. The syllabus should state what declarative and tacit knowledge is to be expected and how learners will be assessed. The balance between formative and summative assessment (heavier on the former than the latter) will determine how learners transform as they close the gap between where they currently are and the expectations articulated in the syllabus as to where they need to be. The educator and the learner work together to help close this gap by assuming different roles and actions as the learner becomes more interdependent and the educator becomes less needed over time. There is nothing magical about this; the balance is knowing how to apply formative and summative assessment in terms of learning what, how, why, when, where, and with whom about both declarative and tacit knowledge based on how they are presented in the syllabus.

Cooperative Learning to Rid Teaching in Isolation

I read with great interest Weston's Teaching Problems (And How to Solve Them) - The Paradigm Series and can certainly appreciate issues around teaching (and learning) in isolation being brought to the forefront. The basic argument is a problem-solution scenario based on distinguishing between teachers co-existing and teachers co-evolving as being a solution to issues related to isolating teaching practice. Teachers who co-exist assumes that teachers, "do their core work alone, all the time, never together" while teachers who co-evolve, "establish mutual goals, foster a common professional language, and develop a shared commitment to specific educational practices for doing core-work" (para. 8). But to better understand the problem, a more nuanced discussion is needed in terms of framing the problem sans suppositions and recognizing the value of cooperation above all else.

Teachers teaching in isolation is a problem many face that few would disagree with, but how to go about addressing this problem typically reduces down to the following: 1) administrative responsibilities toward change and 2) teacher responsibilities toward change. Here, I will focus mainly on the latter and assume a great deal of administrative responsibilities rely on understanding teacher evaluation from a formative assessment lens conducive for making change happen across the institution. Another reason for focusing on teachers as change agents over administrators is that making generalizations about schools or school administers as the problem (e.g., teacher isolation) seems to skirt the issue, thus sidetracking the fact that much of one's own professional learning is within one's control. Thus, the problem should be framed simply as teachers working in isolation are at a disadvantage when it comes to improving pedagogical practice that yields higher student achievement. Framing the problem this way refrains from presenting broad accusations that rarely are always true in all cases. And even if they were true, educators will more often than not have more control over their own professional development than leaving it up solely to school administrators.

Teachers have a responsibility in avoiding the complacency that is teaching and learning in isolation. Even classifying teachers as co-existing and co-evolving does little to shed light on how teachers seldom are ever stripped from having the power to seek professional learning opportunities as needed - think cultivating a personal learning network through elearning. To "exist" or to "evolve" has more to do with a personal choice than school confinement or mandate. Still, I cannot share the same enthusiasm in using words like co-existence and co-evolving in separating two philosophical mindsets that dichotomously put teacher isolation at one end and an apparent community of practice (CoP) at the other. In my mind all humans adapt and adopt based on their surroundings, for better or for worse; perhaps one could argue to co-exist is to adopt more than adapt and to co-evolve is to adapt more than adopt, but regardless, adapting and adopting does not automatically mean the individual is transforming into a better person (e.g., educator). For this reason, an alternative term is needed to clarify what it means to "co-exist" and "co-evolve".

Taking responsibility of one's teaching practice by cooperating with colleagues underpins how teacher isolation begins to dissipate. Cooperation typically happens when individual strengths (based on individual interests, needs, contexts, preferences, identities, etc.) are supported and promoted within an institution and through self-organizing networks that align with individual goals as well as the individual goals established by fellow colleagues. Cooperation contrasts the notion of collaboration where common domains, interests, goals, like-minded individuals, etc. come together via a CoP, striving for organizational goals that take precedence over individual goals. So, teachers who are able to self-organize with colleagues both internal and external to the institution are better positioned to cooperate if they begin making their teaching and learning more transparent and who are willing to work interdependently so that individual goals and objectives are met. Teacher isolation begins to dissipate when cooperative learning begins to meet individual goals and instructional leaders, supervisors, and other administrators learn how to leverage and align the meeting of these individual goals within the context of overarching organizational goals, objectives, and values. A big part of leveraging between organizational and individual goals depends on how teacher evaluations are formative in nature by the support teachers receive when taking risks in their own teaching practice and student learning.

Institutions have a commitment to adhering to a mission and vision statements, but the responsibility of the teacher is to self-organize and to become a network of interdependent individuals by cooperating with each other on topics related to the field of education. There is a synergistic effect when individuals (at any level within the organization) are able to align self-forming and cooperative action among a group of educators to an institutional mission statement in ways that are absent of any coercive behavior interfering with one's pedagogical practice and own professional learning potential. It is beneficial when top-down support facilitates this process when individual goals take precedence, but even in an absence of such support, much can still happen directly from teacher cooperation that emerges bottom up.

Quoting Blanchard, “None of us is as smart as all of us” (as cited in Weston, 2016, para. 16). Perhaps this is true in certain circumstances, but it is also not a given in all cases. The limitations of developing only strong ties, cliques (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique), and rationalizing are real phenomena that can go against an oversimplified notion that groups of individuals are somehow inherently smarter than the individual. It ignores the dynamic ways individuals communicate: collaboration vs. cooperation; strong vs. weak ties; groups vs. network formation; and leadership by rank, position, or title vs. leadership by entitlement.

Organizations that promote self-organizing, teacher cooperation through interdependent professional learning instances that ultimately align with overall mission and vision statements are better equipped to address issues of teacher isolation when it comes to both individual teaching practice and professional learning potential. Organizational change in this regard is both a bottom up and top down endeavor, but both do not necessary need to occur at the same time - one can have a positive impact on the other and one be precede the other (e.g., cooperative learning from self-organizing groups preceding top-down mandates).

How do you initiate change when it comes to addressing the problem of teacher isolation? Is it hopeless or can something be done? Should change be bottom up or top down? Or does one happen before the other or are they concurrent?