For some years the Georgetown community has been discussing how best to improve the learning experience on campus. The Intellectual Life reports, the Student Life reports, and the Middle States Accreditation process, when read together, paint a very coherent picture of a campus ready to innovate pedagogically. For example, the Middle States Accreditation report recommends an increase in active assessment of learning, more research-based learning, community-based learning, and implementation of emerging technologies.
The recommendations explicitly call for opening a vigorous dialogue on campus about these matters. We justifiably pride ourselves at Georgetown with our student-centered learning environment. This dialogue should be focused on how to enhance that environment.
Throughout the campus, faculty have already been using new technologies in courses. These include blogs, discussion boards, streaming video, lecture capture for online use by student 24/7, online interactive modules, wikis, clickers and social media. These also include new ways to help student access and work with data and original materials that were previously only available to researchers. Georgetown’s Master of Science in Nursing program has proven to be a distance-education exemplar, with both technical and nontechnical aspects that are being transferred to the on-campus program after having proven themselves largely online. MSB and SCS have plans to do similar things with some of their programs.
The new software platforms for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) developed initially at Stanford and MIT and now being used by a widening circle of universities offer additional new tools that might be imported to the Hilltop for use in on-campus courses. The long-lasting value of these developments may be the discovery of what blends of computer-assisted learning and face-to-face learning is optimal for different material for different students. This seems perfect for Georgetown.
In this regard, there are two intriguing features of interactive online learning, including the large-scale open courses. First, the sheer numbers of students experiencing the same educational event mean that the instructors are being exposed to more variation than is usual in most single offerings of a course. Looking at experiences of diverse students could allow these courses to improve at a faster clip than normal. Second, the software platforms of these courses can be used to generate data about each keystroke of students, revealing what steps in the learning caused problems, what type of students moved through the material quickly, and what type struggled on certain modules. This kind of feedback is not only powerful for the student but also for the instructor. Learning what kind material works for what kind of student can complement the wisdom that faculty develop about their students’ learning in more traditional formats.
It seems clear that the current set of Georgetown faculty and students have an obligation to those who follow them – to discern what types of learning can be achieved more easily with some technological assist and what types need more intense personal interaction. For example, this might mean building small modules once part of a face-to-face course component into an online experience. These could present material through interactive exercises, give students immediate and targeted feedback, and/or measure student learning through small assessments, permitting students to self-pace their learning to their individual comfort level. If we successfully unlocked those opportunities, then faculty can spend a larger portion of their time in more intense interaction related to higher-order learning.
As noted in the Middle States Accreditation report, it seems like an important moment in time to begin an active conversation among faculty and students at Georgetown. We could inform one another about what tools and techniques are worth experimentation in what kinds of courses. We would use the developments in learning technologies to examine whether they could help us build the next era of a student-centered university. This requires a real conversation about what works and what doesn’t. I think now is the time to start this conversation.
I am a proponent of both publically available education and developing or adopting technology-based pedagogical methods. The great benefit of the information age is accessibility. Wherever I go I have instant access—to my friends and family, to current affairs, to goods and services, to information. If we invest in developing technology here at Georgetown to facilitate the connection to, and transfer of, knowledge, then our entire community benefits; we become more effective instructors and students. If we share and make available some of our knowledge, like Stanford and MIT have done through open courses, then we engage more fully in civic life beyond the front gates.
I am energized and excited by the prospects. This is exactly the conversation Georgetown should be having right now. I am taking two open courses right now, one philosophy course at Stanford and one history course at Harvard—but I have had to go outside of Georgetown, my employer, to find them. I only wish I could download the Ignatius Seminars or the Problem of God from iTunesU.
I’m all for the use of technology in our courses. Indeed, there are many weeks that I wish I could just post my lecture online for my students to watch and take notes from do that we can reserve class time for discussion. But that presupposes that all of our students are well versed in or even appreciate the art of discussing a theme or an argument in a manner that allows for the free flow of ideas. Quite a few of our students, I’ve observed, have become all too comfortable with the lecture format. I applaud Provost Groves’ efforts in moving Georgetown to rethink the use of technology both in and out of our classrooms as a way of encouraging learning. But I also believe we as a community need to work towards facilitating an environment in which intellectual engagement is lauded, where the cultivation of ideas is just as valued as the cultivation of resumes and Capitol Hill contacts. I’m sure I’m unaware of all that Georgetown currently offers along these lines. And perhaps that is where to begin – ensuring that the entire community is made more aware of what Georgetown has to offer.
I recognize the popularity of online learning techniques and feel sure that like everything else, they have great advantages when used to do the things to which they are well suited, and serious drawbacks when they become the magic New Thing that gets embraced without careful thought. My own thinking is that there are things that work best that way. For example, one of my more popular writing assignments requires students to use a database built from Civil War muster rolls that otherwise would be impossible to access and tedious to use, to recreate the entire Civil War career of any soldier of their choice, and keep a journal as if they were him -they love it, it has real benefits for them, and it could only be done by using online technology.
Yet here is my big worry. We assume that students now are the “digital generation” and therefore if we stick everything on a screen they will learn it better. Yet research on learning and comprehension makes clear that there are real limitations to what human brains will and can learn from stuff blinking at them on a screen. It is NOT a matter of “digital generation” because the research with very young children makes the same point. It has to do with human wiring. I see a very troubling decline in even the last five years in students’ reading comprehension. The ability to read through an article (let alone a book) with an involved argument has waned; they have trouble getting past the first couple of pages before attention wanders, and so I spend much more time now literally walking through readings talking about what it means to read for argument, modeling exactly how we do that, etc. etc. I don’t mind doing so, but the need to do so is recent and growing and will not be addressed via online learning methods.
In short, I only hope as we go forward that we will recognize tools as what they are –tools that are in the service of a higher goal, not ends unto themselves that make us look good to outside observers. When they work I am all for them. But I am also for keeping our eyes on the prize, and that means leaving space for off-screen time, real-live reading, and that one activity that we leave our students so little time to unplug and do, reflective THINKING about the questions that mark the human condition, and need more than the push of a button to answer.
All courses delivering anything beyond a simple how-to require some individualized attention to students. That goes for theoretical as well as specialized, technical learning (if there is any fundamental pedagogical difference). The question is whether anything is lost in moving from face-to-face interaction – say, office hours – to what’s effectively a Skype conversation.
Dr. Groves,
The focus of your blog post is forward-looking and important to the future of education. I have taken hybrid courses with SCS that used classroom and online components and I also have learned from courses on iTunesU. Bringing knowledge gained online to the classroom was a very enriching experience.
In the course of working with technology at Georgetown in the Classroom Educational Technology Department, I have had the opportunity to see the value in applying technology to learning as well as applying it within the University from an operational perspective. Reading your comments about improving learning from statistical analysis of the end user immediately brought thoughts to mind from my narrow operational perspective.
Firstly, the growth of technology has given rise to large data stores at Georgetown, but it requires some effort to discover and share them. Sharing data easily and as transparently as could be allowed within the University ought to be a goal of this initiative. Secondly, training on statistical analysis and processing ought to widely available for the many different entities within the University that could take advantage of data stores. When I first arrived at Georgetown, many intermediate to advanced training courses were available for statistical software, databases, and spreadsheets, but it seems a switch to individual training has taken place. The recent addition of lynda.com is great, but combining that with in person training might further emphasize and promote the use of data to improve the Georgetown learning experience in many different ways. Lastly, I believe interdepartmental communication is very important and applicable to your proposition. For example, over the years, the Computer Science department has proved an invaluable resource to me in designing systems that enable me to apply technology to further the University’s mission, also, communication with the Office of the University Registrar has enabled me to develop a work flow that takes advantage of large data stores. I feel that interdepartmental communication is a prerequisite to leveraging technology and reaching your goals. Such communication should be encouraged. The potential value of this comunication was on display at the recent “Online Learning at Georgetown: Faculty Perspectives” seminar.
I apologize for the lengthy comment, but the topic you touched on provoked thought and is close to my learning and work experience. It is quite timely and a path Georgetown should be on. I only offer a narrow perspective, but felt welcomed by your blog to do so. Thanks.
I’m all for the use of technology in our courses. Indeed, there are many weeks that I wish I could just post my lecture online for my students to watch and take notes from do that we can reserve class time for discussion. But that presupposes that all of our students are well versed in or even appreciate the art of discussing a theme or an argument in a manner that allows for the free flow of ideas. Quite a few of our students, I’ve observed, have become all too comfortable with the lecture format. I applaud Provost Groves’ efforts in moving Georgetown to rethink the use of technology both in and out of our classrooms as a way of encouraging learning. But I also believe we as a community need to work towards facilitating an environment in which intellectual engagement is lauded, where the cultivation of ideas is just as valued as the cultivation of resumes and Capitol Hill contacts. I’m sure I’m unaware of all that Georgetown currently offers along these lines. And perhaps that is where to begin – ensuring that the entire community is made more aware of what Georgetown has to offer.
Provost Groves makes a compelling argument for why it is the responsibility of current faculty and students to move toward exploring how technology can improve our learning environment. At MSB, we have identified our executive programs as green fields for experimentation. MSB Senior Associate Dean for Executive Educatiion Paul Almeida is asking each program chair to work with our faculty to leverage technology to reduce in-class delivery by 25%. This is a bold goal. It reinforces a sense of urgency. Is there a need for a comparable stretch goal being proposed that will effect all educational units at GU?
I think one other aspect that needs to be considered is educating the student about what these new methodologies are intended to do. From first hand experience with integrating technology into the courses, some students view the addition of on-line materials and discussion as “extra work” or as a way of curtailing discussion in class rather than enhancing it. Others might have the impression that using technology enhanced methods are a “cheaper” and low value. I was quite surprised by these reactions, especially coming from the supposedly technology savvy undergraduate students. It made me realize how important it is to prepare the students and really orient them to the technologies, what the goals are and to make it applicable to them now. I don’t think that aspect of integrating technology is discussed enough.
Sorry about the disjunctive post. Such is technology at Georgetown. he first line of my post should have read: “Georgetown needs to replenish its regular faculty lines.”
I reserve judgment on MOOCs since the evidence is not yet in on their effectiveness. Marketing is not education and the two need to be kept separate.
Georgetown needsNo one benefits from this policy, Geore= to replenish its regular faculty lines. Under the previous Provost the ordinary faculty has been dangerously shrunken. Read Benjamin Ginsberg’s The Fall of the Faculty to see Georgetown writ large on every page. The reflexive response of the administration regarding the replenishment of regular faculty lines is troublesome. No one benefits from this policy, Georgetown students or non-regular faculty, who never get the opportunity to establish their career. If Georgetown wants to be a leader it should dedicate itself to finding a way out of this morass in higher education today.
The type of courses that are available from MIT and Stanford that I’ve heard people I know talk about are mostly technical. Although one can argue that most of what we learn in school is techne of one sort or another, the classes that I enjoy here are interactive and small. If the MOOCS can be combined with virtual or physical collaborative groups that take the online meetings to offline learning sessions, I think that Georgetown can solve a problem that may help the rest of the education-sphere.
Thank you for your comments on the emerging world of MOOCs and interactive online learning. The alumni community also has a strong interest in Georgetown’s role in this world. Several members of our alumni Board of Governors have or are taking courses through Coursera and edX. Moreover, alumni surveys consistently have shown that our alumni are quite interested in continuing education for professional and personal benefit, which often can best be achieved via this type of learning vehicle. We welcome you (and your blog posts) to the Hilltop and look forward to engaging on this and other items of mutual interest.