I began my search for an Open Courseware (OCW) class this
week unsure of what to expect in terms of a complete online free course. I immediately began to run into OCW programs
that seemed to be repositories of course materials, but struggled to find a
complete course I thought I could actually take as a learner. I felt if I could look at the course from the
learner lens, than I would do a better job in my analysis of the course
design. I finally landed on MIT’s OCW Scholar
courses and honed in on Fundamentals
of Biology (Lander, E., Weinberg, R., Jacks, T.,
Sive, H., Walker, G., Chisholm, S., & Mischke, M., 2011). My first impression of the course was that is
was thorough and complete in terms of its course content. But I found myself struggling with who the
course was designed for and realized that before I could truly critique the
design, I needed to answer this question.
Anderson (2008) explains that “all
teaching & learning systems should be built from two vantage points: the
needs of the intended students and the intended learning outcomes of the course
or program – i.e. the knowledge, skills, and attributes that students will
gain. An ideal online learning system
will be based on a plan that flows from a full understanding of these two
fundamentals” (p. 123). Keeping this in mind, I went in search of who
the intended students were for these OCW Scholar courses and then felt I could
reflect back on whether this was an ideal online learning system.
I wrestled with trying to determine who
would take this biology course or any of the OCW Scholar courses when no credit
is conferred, and no certificate is awarded for the effort and completion. Simply taking the course for knowledge gain
seems like a refreshing idea, and as a motivated, insatiable learner, I
personally could see benefit. However, I
wasn’t sure who the larger learner audience was. After researching this aspect, I quickly
realized that the intended users for these courses are diverse, global learners
of all ages. The course materials serve
“as ingredients of learning that can then be combined with teacher-student
interaction somewhere else or simply explored by, say, professors in Chile or
precocious high school students in Bangladesh” (Goldberg, 2001). Furthermore, statistics collected from the
past ten years of OCW use at MIT, reveal a vast learning audience.
“Currently, more than
93% of undergraduates and 82% of graduate students say they use the site as a
supplement to their course material or to study beyond their formal coursework.
Eighty-four percent of faculty members use the site for advising, course
materials creation, and personal learning. More than half of MIT alumni report
using the site as well, keeping up with developments in their field, revisiting
the materials of favorite professors, and exploring new topics” (Miyagawa,
2010).
Further research revealed that the
original OCW course design was intended not for outside students, but rather as
a resource for educator use in their own classrooms (MIT OpenCourseWare,
2014). Global users beta tested these
initial OCW courses and the feedback gathered by the designers allowed for a
reshaping of the courses, a key feature in planning a distance learning program
(Laureate Educaiton, Inc., n.d.). The
outcome was OCW Scholar, a set of more robust courses intentionally designed to
serve independent learners who have limited access to extra resources (MIT
OpenCourseWare, 2014).
In
reflecting on whether the course appears to be pre-planned and designed for a
distance learning environment, I would say absolutely. I believe the designers use Knowles
andragogical theory, which is understood as the theory of adult learning as a
basis for this course design (Conlan, Grabowski, & Smith, 2003). One assumption of adults as learners is that
they are more self-directed and independent, and thus better able to handle a
self-paced study course (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek,
2012). The course content is presented
in a way that the learner can interact with and control in a way that fits
their skill level, learning style and need. Additionally, adults are internally
motivated, rather than extrinsically, and thus approach the learning process in
an individualistic manner (Conlan, et. al., 2003). In the OCW Scholar Biology course, there is
no extrinsic motivation provided for the learning process. There is no instructor feedback on the work
and no grade provided to the learner.
Rather the motivation must come internally from the learner as they
reflect on how they can personally benefit from the knowledge gain through
completing the course.
In addition to planning the Fundamentals of Biology
for a particular learner, the course developers followed many recommendations
for online instruction design. For
example, Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek discuss the
importance of avoiding dumping face-to-face course content into the web
environment (2012, p. 134). The course
designers at MIT, specifically highlight that the course materials include
custom-created content for the online environment in addition to enhanced
materials from the face-to-face classroom (MIT OpenCourseWare, 2014). Additionally, Simonson, et. al. (2012),
discuss the importance of course organization online and a detailed
syllabus. I immediately had a clear
picture of the entire course from the home page. There was a detailed course overview and
syllabus with clearly defined learning objectives for each section and overall
course. Each topic also contains
information, including what will be learned in the section how it ties to the
learning objectives for the unit and course.
Supplemental course readings and videos are embedded into each unit to
help the learner gain knowledge outside the course text, another important
feature discussed by Simonson, et. al. (2012).
A final component of my analysis of the
Fundamentals of Biology OCW Scholar course was the examination of the design of
course activities to maximize learning for students. Swan (2003) highlights interactions in an
online environment that are necessary for effective learning. Specifically there should be clarity and
consistency the course design with opportunities for active learning and
assessment (Swan, 2003). Each topic unit
in The Fundamentals of Biology course include an overview, a session activity,
a check yourself section, practice problems, and outside extra resource
links. The session activities are
infused with multimedia, such as videos from instructors, simulations or
tutorials. Additionally, Swan (2003)
discusses the importance of frequent learner feedback. At first I thought the lack of
student-instructor interaction in this OCW setting would inhibit this process. However, after exploring the course more
thoroughly, I found ample opportunities for learner feedback and assessment of
learning. Each learning activity is
followed by a check for understanding that provides immediate feedback. Additionally, all practice problems have a
separate solutions attached. Each unit
exam includes a test that is clearly linked to the objectives and also includes
solutions. In this sense, the learner
can self-monitor their achievement of each of the objectives as they work through
the course and spend more time on areas of deficiency. A last built in component of the OCW Scholar
courses is a course study group that allows for peer interaction and
support. This allows for some important
social contact for the learner and additional feedback on the learning process
that helps fill the gap for no instructor presence.
Overall, I was quite impressed with
this OCW Scholar course. I was surprised
at what I learned through my exploration both on the MIT site as well as
outside, in terms of the use and success of these programs for global
independent learners. I look forward to
having the time in the future to accessing and utilizing such as course for my
own personal learning.
References:
Anderson, T. (2008). Theory and Practice of Online Learning
(2nd ed.) Athabasca University, Canada: AU press.
Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult
learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and
technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning
Goldberg, C. (2001, April 4). Auditing classes at M.I.T., on the web and
free. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/us/auditing-classes-at-mit-on-the-web-and-free.html
Lander, E., Weinberg, R., Jacks, T.,
Sive, H., Walker, G., Chisholm, S., & Mischke, M. (2011). 7.01SC Fundamentals of Biology. MIT OpenCourseWare: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. Retreived from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-01sc-fundamentals-of-biology-fall-2011
Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Developing online courses
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu
MIT OpenCourseWare. (2014).
FAQ: OCW scholar. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-ocw-scholar/
Miyagawa, S. (2010).
MIT OpenCourseWare: A decade of global benefit. MIT
Faculty Newsletter, 23(1). Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/231/miyagawa.html
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S.
(2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education
(5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Swan, K. (2003).
Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C.
Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction.
Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 13-45.
No comments:
Post a Comment