Group items tagged

What is investing?Any time you invest, you're devoting your own time, resources, or effort to achieve a greater goal. You can invest your weekends in a good cause, invest your intelligence in your job, or invest your time in a relationship. Just as you undertake each of these expecting good results, you invest your money in a stock, bond, or mutual fund because you think its value will appreciate over time.

Planning and setting goalsInvesting is like a long car trip: A lot of planning goes into it. Before you start, you've got to ask yourself: Where are you going? (What are your financial goals?) How long is the trip? (What is your investing "time horizon"?) What should you pack? (What type of investments will you make?) How much gas will you need? (How much money will you need to reach your goals? How much can you devote to a regular investing plan?) Will you need to stop along the way? (Do you have short-term financial needs?) How long do you plan on staying? (Will you need to live off the investment in later years?

Active and passive strategiesThe two main methods of investing in stocks are called active and passive management, and the difference between them has nothing to do with how much time you spend on the couch (or the exercise bike). Active investors (or their brokers or fund managers) pick their own stocks, bonds, and other investments. Passive investors let their holdings follow an index created by some third party.

Some have reported attrition from eLearning as high as 70 - 80% (Flood 2002, Forrester 2000, in Dagger & Wade, 2004). Parker (1999) argues that “With the growth of distance education has come the problem of exceedingly high attrition rates”. Citing Carter (1996), she suggests that eLearning student attrition in some institutions is exceeds 40%, while others (Frankola, 2001). Diaz (2002), put it at between 20 - 50%,  and Carr (2000), estimate it to be 10% - 20% higher than for traditional on-campus education.

In the meantime, I've written a book, from which this article is drawn, about all that I've learned from my research. In my book, I focus on what I identify as seven myths, or widely held beliefs, that dominate our educational practice. I start with the myth that teaching facts prevents understanding, because this (along with my second myth, that teacher-led instruction is passive) is the foundation of all the other myths I discuss. These myths have a long pedigree and provide the theoretical justification for so much of what goes on in schools. Taken together, all seven myths actually damage the education of our pupils. But here, let's focus on facts and the role knowledge has in our understanding.

Why Is It a Myth? My aim here is not to criticize true conceptual understanding, genuine appreciation of significance, or higher-order skill development. All of these things are indeed the true aim of education. My argument is that facts and subject content are not opposed to such aims; instead, they are part of it. Rousseau, Dewey, and Freire were wrong to see facts as the enemy of understanding. All the scientific research of the last half-century proves them wrong. The modern bureaucrats and education experts who base policy and practice on their thinking are wrong too, and with less excuse, as they have been alive when evidence that refutes these ideas has been discovered. Rousseau was writing in the 18th century; Dewey at the turn of the 20th; Freire in the 1970s. Research from the second half of the 20th century tells us that their analyses of factual learning are based on fundamentally faulty premises.

If we want pupils to develop the skills of analysis and evaluation, they need to know things. Willingham puts it this way:23 Data from the last thirty years lead to a conclusion that is not scientifically challengeable: thinking well requires knowing facts, and that's true not just because you need something to think about. The very processes that teachers care about most—critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving—are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in long-term memory (not just found in the environment).

So establishing teaching presence is what all the designers, Alex, and even I, am doing when we make decisions about the content of the course, the types of activities we want to include, the tools we would like to use, how we want to assess, how we provide channels for providing and managing feedback, how we want to induct students into the course, how we want to wrap up the course….Basically – everything!

From planning, to execution, to assessment, to revision. So this is why developing a course is an “iterative process”.

A teacher’s proficiency is manifested by the ability to look at the subject from a learner’s point of view, to foresee the critical junctions in learning, and to design teaching to meet learners’ information acquisition and collection processes (e.g., Zombylas, 2007).

van Manen (1991) claims that as teachers embrace all children, regardless of their characteristics they become real educators, and thus, educators’ pedagogical love becomes the precondition for pedagogical relations to grow (p

Individualistic features, position, nationality, gender, abilities, race, or language do not determine a human being’s value. Those differences based on skills, intelligence, or knowledge are insignificant compared with that basic human presence that is the same for all people: the right and need to be loved, accepted, and cared for as well as the right and need to grow and develop (Bradshaw, 1996; Lanara, 1981; Sprengel & Kelly, 1992).

One online instructor (Alley 1996) has described this changing pedagogical consciousness as an �instructional epiphany�.� Alley tells of a personal transformation, stimulated by online instruction, marked by two "milestones". First, he had to totally redesign his course to fit and leverage the new learning environment. Second, he had to rethink what he calls his �basic approach�: �As long as I held on to the traditional �sage-on-stage� style of teaching, I would keep reinventing ways for students to be a passive audience� (1996:51).� Similar changes in pedagogical belief and practice have been reported by other faculty who have taught web-based courses (Brown 1998; Jaffee 1997; Cremer 1998) as well as researchers who have interviewed online instructors (Frank 2000).�� There are clearly some �structural constraints� built into the virtual classroom ecology that make it difficult to implement traditional modes of delivery and, in this sense, almost force instructors to entertain active learning strategies. As Frank (2000) discovered in her study of online instructors, "All of the participants saw online learning as empowering for students. The most valuable benefits were the facilitation of active learning, critical thinking, collaboration, confidence, and lifelong learning habits. A common theme was the way in which the teacher is forced to give up the control that one has in a face-to-face environment and re-examine the traditional role of content deliverer".� Just as the physical classroom architecture imposes constraints on, and opportunities for, particular pedagogical practices, so too does the virtual classroom. John Seely Brown (2000) has described the environment of the world-wide-web as a �learning ecology� that is a self-organized evolving collection of cross-pollinating overlapping communities of interest.� Asynchronous web-based courses that include a discussion forum possess many of the same ecological features. All members of the class can receive and broadcast information at any time. This critical communication feature distinguishes the virtual classroom from prior forms of instructional technology.�� While instructors can mediate and guide, they cannot entirely control the flow of communication. Thus, instructor and student roles and relations are less hierarchical and more overlapping and interactive. These greater opportunities for participation can contribute to a greater diversity of opinion and perspective. It is hard work to establish these social dynamics in a physical classroom constrained by a fixed space, a designated time block, and trained inhibitions. The virtual classroom, in contrast, has the potential to establish new patterns of instructor and student interaction and, accordingly, different teaching and learning roles and practices (Girod and Cavanaugh 2001; Becker and Ravitz 1999). ��������� In making comparisons between the physical and virtual classroom, it is important to emphasize a cautionary caveat. The pedagogical ecology, be it a physical classroom or a virtual interface, cannot entirely determine a particular pedagogical practice or learning outcome. The pedagogical ecology offers opportunities and constraints that will shape and influence classroom dynamics and learning outcomes, but much will also depend on the principles informing, and the actual design of, the teaching and learning process (see Chamberlin 2001). The various practices that are employed in both a physical and a virtual classroom indicate the range of possibilities. However, if we believe that, for the purpose of student learning, active student engagement and interaction is preferable to the passive reception of information, we should consider the degree to which this principle is advanced or facilitated by the expanding virtual learning ecology.�

Sociological theories and concepts have an important role to play in analyzing and interpreting these developments. A central sociological proposition is that structural environments influence the social perceptions, roles, and relations of human actors.� As increasing numbers of students and faculty find themselves operating in virtual learning environments, we might also expect to find some changing instructional dynamics. More specifically, there are a number of questions worth exploring. What are the relationships between the technical, the social, and the pedagogical infrastructures?� How has the introduction of new instructional technologies influenced established pedagogical practices? How does the shift from a physical classroom to a virtual learning environment shape and reconfigure the social roles and relations among faculty and students? What consequences will these technologies have for developing pedagogical practices?

have less to do with the proven effectiveness of the particular practice than the desire to appear legitimate or conform to normative expectations.�

The focus of this paper is teaching presence, which has been defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes” (Garrison et al., 2000).

Instructor teaching presence is hypothesized to be an indicator of online instructional quality.  Empirical research has supported this view with evidence indicating strong correlations between the quality of teaching presence and student satisfaction and learning (Bangert, 2008; Picciano, 2002; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003)

First, there is a need to revisit two of the original three teaching presence elements.

Student learning ought to be at the heart of any pedagogical strategy or technique, regardless of whether the class is delivered online or in a more traditional classroom setting.

there is little doubt that online teaching and learning requires more time in both preparation and delivery; however, the point was previously made that this should not necessarily be the case. Good teaching in traditional classrooms, when done well, also requires a significant amount of time to prepare and deliver. We argue here that both teaching and learning would improve if many of the considerations inherent in the preparation and delivery of online learning were given priority in courses delivered in traditional classrooms.

It is hoped that the key issues addressed here will assist faculty in the preparation and delivery of their traditional courses. In summary, the benefits for traditional instruction in statistics through the use of online pedagogy are: 1) Improved ability to know what material is “essential” to the students’ understanding and learning. A focused delivery of traditional pedagogy minimizes student confusion and misunderstandings and leaves time for additional activities that can be used to enhance student learning. 2) Improved ability to logically and consistently organize and deliver course material. The use of weekly modules containing an overview that summarizes the lecture topic and objectives is helpful to both the instructor and the student in organizing course material 3) Improved willingness to seek out and complete training on how to teach in the traditional classroom. While some colleges and universities require training to teach online, few, if any, require training to teach in the classroom. Many colleges and universities provide both individual and group training to instructors who are new to teaching, and the experience of teaching online can enhance an instructor’s desire and ability to be a better teacher in the traditional classroom. 4) Improved ability to create multiple strategies for the submission of student work and clarification of misunderstandings. The experience of teaching online enables instructors to devise varied strategies for the submission of course work, and provides additional arenas for the instructor to clarify misunderstandings in a forum in which all students can participate. 5) Improved ability to use new technologies for the development and delivery of instruction. Knowing what tools are available for course development and delivery can broaden an instructor’s ability to prepare course materials and deliver them in creative, stimulating ways. 6) Improved ability to maintain the course schedule. 7) Improved ability to maintain contact with all students in the course. In traditional classrooms, students can sit quietly for weeks, engaging little, if at all, with the instructor, the material, or their peers. Teaching online exposes instructors to a wide variety of strategies for enhancing student engagement because they must participate. 8) Improved pedagogical versatility. Being proficient teaching in multiple venues increases one’s own instructional flexibility, and also increases the flexibility of a department to deliver instruction to students. 9) Improved student access to the course material during instructor absences. Having the course material created by the instructor available during the instructor’s absence facilitates student learning and helps maintain the course schedule. 10) Improved student learning due to the repetitive availability of course material, including practice problems and solutions. Once voice-over lectures have been created, they can be uploaded to Blackboard for use in any course.

Develop student learning opportunities. This takes into account the course documents, the teacher's personal theories of teaching and learning, the student’s interest, their preferred learning styles and their understanding and skills. It is in this area that the teacher as facilitator is able to provide opportunities for student learning that will take hold of the students' interests and thus motivate them to engage in the learning opportunity. Harrison (1998a & b) has presented the S.P.A.C.E. model for creating optimal learning conditions. The conditions for optimal learning include the following: Self-affimation – the learner’s view themselves as effective learners and the teachers provide them with feedback to that effect; Personal meaning – the learners are able to find personal meaning in the learning. That is, the learning is relevant to them; Active learning - the learners are active in the learning, whether that activity is physically doing something (as for concrete learners) or intellectually doing something (as for abstract reflective learners). Collaborative – the learners are able to collaborate with others in the learning process and not to view learning as an isolating experience; Empowering – the learners are able to shape the learning process, to have control over what is learnt and the direction of the learning.

The role of the teacher is diverse and has several orientations. One important aspect is that of facilitator of student learning. The facilitator attempts to provide circumstances that will enable students to engage with the learning opportunities and construct for themselves their understandings and skills. This role will interact with those of teacher as learner, colleague and community partner.

A student’s beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning will interact with a teacher’s beliefs. The teacher therefore needs to understand what students expect and are willing to do as well as what they themselves expect of the students.

I believe that using questions that allow my students to explore areas that are relevant to their unique situations will help them to be successful.

The first course carrying the name MOOC was offered in 2008, so this is new phenomenon. Second, the pedagogical style of the early courses, which we shall call cMOOCs, was based on a philosophy of connectivism and networking. This is quite distinct from the xMOOCs now being developed by elite US institutions that follow a more behaviourist approach. Third, the few academic studies of MOOCs are about the earlier offerings because there has been no time for systematic research on the crop of 2012 xMOOCs. Analysis of the latter has to be based on a large volume of press articles and blogs. Fourth, commentary on MOOCs includes thinly disguised promotional material by commercial interests (e.g. Koller, 2012) and articles by practitioners whose perspective is their own MOOC courses.

The term MOOC originated in Canada. Dave Cormier and Bryan Alexander coined the acronym to describe an open online course at the University of Manitoba designed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. The course, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, was presented to 25 fee-paying students on campus and 2,300 other students from the general public who took the online class free of charge (Wikipedia, 2012a).

Can xMOOCs make money?