Perceptions of online learning are changing
Find the original post here.
Infographic of the Week: Perceptions of Online Education
Reply
Category Archives: EDUCATION
Get Online and Stay Interactive: Media tools make interaction easy.
When venturing into the online classroom, many teachers worry that they will lose the personal interaction present in the traditional classroom setting. There, students and teachers are face-to-face, which creates that old-school type of interaction called conversation. In many popular online learning management systems, that interaction changes to a written format, which allows students to continue making comments 24 hours a day. This flexibility is one the biggest selling points for online education.
Teachers can utilize video chats, virtual whiteboards, and forums to increase student interaction.
At the same time, the spontaneity of live class discussion can be lost. Students often learn more from those discussions with teachers and classmates than from their homework, reading, and problem sets. The slower format of class comment, and even live chat, which operates in real time through written formats, can dampen that discussion.
At Rukuku, we’ve tried to maintain all of these elements by offering a live video chat feature, as well as written chat and comment sections. We also include a virtual white board, which allows both teachers and students to write via iPads or on their computer screens. For example, a teacher could write a math problem on the white board and let the student solve it. Through all these features, online channels can actually strengthen interaction.
Strengthening that interaction takes more than technological tools, however. It takes time. This is one of the biggest surprises for many first-time online teachers. Because class discussion can continue 24 hours a day, teachers must commit to checking in on their classes and commenting often. For better or worse, most online students have come to expect prompt responses.
Toward that end, many online class services require teachers to respond to student comments within a certain time frame, usually 48 hours. Teachers that don’t have those requirements specifically should impose them on themselves. We all have emails from friends and family sitting in our inboxes, waiting for responses. Those responses usually don’t happen if they don’t happen quickly. If you are planning an online class, set a deadline at 12, 24, or at most 48 hours to respond to your students’ comments.
AND, in addition to that, schedule a video chat, just as you would in a traditional course. You may be able to include your lecture in recorded video form as preparation material, together with assigned reading. But make sure you schedule some time each week to lead a video chat. It will add spontaneity and virtual face time, while bringing your students closer to you and to each other.
Finntastic Education!
Government policymakers everywhere want to make their schools better. To do that, many of them look to the country of Finland for guidance. That’s right, Finland. Finland’s education system places first in the world in several different rankings, including this one, conducted by Education firm Pearson. For comparison, Japan is fourth, Germany 15th, and the US 17th. After learning about the country’s stellar ranking, I wanted to know more. I did a bit of research (aka Googled Finland, Education), and learned some interesting facts.
Finland’s education system ranks first in the world.
First, and my favorite, Finnish elementary students have more fun. Elementary students in Finland spend around 75 minutes a day for recess, compared to 27 minutes for students in the US. Teachers get more free time, too, spending only four hours per day in the classroom, on average. That leaves more time for evaluation, reflection, collaboration, and further training,
Second, people really want to be teachers. In 2010, 6600 people applied for 660 teaching positions in Finland, according to sources cited by the Smithsonian Magazine. The reason is probably not the salary. Primary school teachers in Finland have an average starting salary of less than $31,000 and maximum salary of about $40,000, compared to $38,000 and $53,000 respectively in the US. The profession is highly respected, though, and the government pays for the masters’ degrees for those accepted into the education training program. All teachers must have master’s degrees.
Those master’s degrees come in handy because the central government also gives a lot of autonomy to the country’s teachers and principals. The national government only offers broad guidelines, leaving it up to local officials and educators to determine the best methods for achieving those goals.
Finally, students usually have only one standardized test, which takes place when students are already approaching the end of high school. Students generally are kept in the same class as well, rather than separated into groups based on performance. As a result, the difference between the highest and lowest performing students is the lowest in the world.
There are many reasons why Finland’s educational model doesn’t translate easily to other places. The country is small, only 5.4 million people, and homogenous, with more than 90% of the population of Finnish descent. But even when compared to similar Scandinavian countries, or states like Kentucky or Minnesota, with similar demographics, its educational system outperforms.
So, which of these points – more recess for children, stricter requirements and more financial support and planning time for teachers, greater autonomy at the local level, or fewer standardized tests – do you think could be most beneficial for the educational system of your city, state, country?
Financial Aid and the Plight of the Financially-Challenged
I am a huge fan of need-based aid, as I described in this post last week. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some problems with the system. At the end of the day, most universities still prefer students that can pay their part. To do this, while maintaining the need-blind admission label, universities have employed a few techniques.
Colleges adjust policies to attract high income students
One of these ways is early admission. Early admission policies allow students to apply in the fall to their favorite schools, and in return, those students must commit earlier to attend these schools. That seems harmless enough on the surface. In fact, a senior year of high school where one already has college plans sorted sounds like a lot of fun.
The problem is, information on financial aid packages is still not available until the spring. If the amount of financial aid offered could influence your decision (aka, paying full price is not an option for you), then you may not be able to commit early. This is one way that colleges can ensure they are getting students that can contribute more in tuition.
A second way is by offering merit-based scholarships rather than need-based scholarships. How could offering more scholarships be bad for poorer students? Seems crazy, right? This is how it could work. A $5000 merit-based scholarship for a student that can pay the remaining $20000 is far better for the school than offering a $20,000 need-based scholarship for a student that can only pay $5000. With that $20,000 need-based scholarship, the school can offer four $5000 merit scholarships, bringing in $80,000 in tuition.
This is especially helpful for state-owned schools, where out-of-state students pay a much higher price. Giving them a merit-based scholarship may convince them to attend, when they will actually still pay much more than the average student. According to a May study by the New America Foundation, the percentage of students at private universities that received merit-based aid increased from 24% to 44% from 1995-97 to 2006-07, while the percentage receiving need-based scholarships decreased from 43% to 42%.
Along similar lines, the increase in student loan limits seems at first like a measure that should help low-income students. In reality, however, the increase in student loan limits has come with rising tuitions. There are many reasons for those rising costs, as we’ve discussed in past posts, but the net result is that low-income students graduate with much more debt than in the past. Students graduated with an average annual debt load of $35,200 this year, according to research from Fidelity Investments.
So what’s happened as a result of all this? Unsurprisingly, high-performing students from lower income backgrounds are less likely to attend prestigious schools. This has some serious consequences for those students. Similarly performing students that attend more selective universities have better chances of graduating and higher lifelong earnings.
According to research from the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, students with SAT scores of 1100-1199 that attended one of the 468 most selective schools had an 81% graduation rate, while those that attended open access two and four year schools had graduation rates of only 53%. Ten years after finishing schools, the graduates from the selective programs made $67,000 a year, on average, compared to $49,000 for those attending less selective schools.
The new ranking system that the Education Department is working on may address some of these issues. It will be tough to reach the proper balance in that ranking, as we’ve highlighted before, but it is a project worth pursuing.
For the record, the New America Report highlighted the fifteen schools below for being particularly generous in offering need-based aid, so for any of you out there looking at colleges, keep these guys in mind: Amherst College, Vassar College, Grinnell College, Williams College, MIT, Wellesley College, Cooper Union, Stanford University, University of Richmond, Pomona College, Rice University, Cornell University, Bowdoin College, Wesleyan University, and Dartmouth College.
Marketing 101: How do Academic Interests Translate into Bullet Points and Discussion Topics?
Last week, we discussed some of the ways in which universities are trying to make liberal arts courses more marketable through activities like group work and class presentations. Another part of that process, though, is presenting what one has learned in a positive light to potential employers. To do that, students, recent grads, and job seekers in general need to turn their interests and experiences into resume bullet points and interview discussion topics.
Students turn interests into resume bullet points and interview talking points to build their own brand.
Are you taking a class on the Roman Empire? Cool, explain how the class helped you better understand the downfall of Lehman Bros. Class on Shakespearean literature? Discuss Macbeth’s leadership strengths and flaws. Are you in a punk rock band? Awesome, put a bullet point on the CV and talk about how you overcame adversity to book gigs and manage the band budget, all while keeping the drummer sober.
It’s kind of fun to make those connections. Demonstrates creativity. (Quick write that down for your next interview.) I do wonder, though, how that pressure to make everything marketable influences the educational experience. We think of higher education, or at least I think of higher education, as a time when students are encouraged to challenge assumptions and continually ask why. Do we sacrifice any intellectual space by following our ‘why’ questions so quickly with ‘how does that relate to a career”?
I don’t have an answer for that and am very interested to hear if any educators, students, or other readers have opinions to share. How strongly should the potential marketability of a class or an activity factor into a student’s choice to participate? Do those considerations make classes any less academic?
