Education 2.0 and Assessment

In the last year I've spent way too many hours thinking about Education 2.0 and assessment. Most of my thinking has been about ways to gather objective data about the impact of adding the various Web 2.0 tools. (There are plenty of Social Science studies that ask students how they feel about Web 2.0, but very little about actual impact on student learning.)

But this week I started to think about Education 2.0 versus the assessment activities that we are currently carrying out at the college. We're supposed to design some activities to assess student learning. These activities should do a couple of things:

1. Check to see if our students are learning what we say they should learn. That is are they meeting class, program or college objectives.
2. Check to see how effective the activity is. The results of the assessment activities are should provide instructors some insight and feedback about student performance. If the students perform as expected then it can probably be assumed that they learned the subject. If the students don't perform as expected, then something probably needs to be changed.

I think the assessment activities are very valuable, and coming from industry, I'm surprised that we don't do more complete assessments.

But as I work on Education 2.0 and see it's impact, I feel a little perplexed by the assessment activities we're doing at the college. It's like we're on a big ship where we need to deliver a cargo to a distant port. We're being asked to measure a bunch of little things like cabin temperature or number of cans of chili left in the food locker. These things may be somewhat important to a successful voyage, but in the big picture they're actually pretty incidental to things like steering the ship. Moving from Education 1.0 to Education would be even bigger than changing the ship's course, it would be like changing from a sail powered boat to a modern nuclear powered ship.

There still's some value in measuring the little things, but they have such a small impact on student learning compared to moving to Education 2.0. I'm hopeful that the rest of the college will soon share this feeling.

Situation Target Proposal (STP) For CBC Technology

I'm on the newly revived Columbia Basin College Technology Committee. We had our first meeting on Dec 9, and it looks like a good group. Kim Tucker is leading the committee, and here are her opening remarks.



And here are some photos of some of the committee members. Please do not make fun of Nina until we move these photos to her blog. I asked her to do this!



The next step is to define where CBC is currently at regarding technology. Jerry Lewis volunteered himself, and then me to do this, and Brian Dexter said he'd also help. Jerry talked about doing a survey of what hardware and software people are using ... which could be useful to define our current situation.

But as I started to think about it, the things that define that define our current situation aren't really things. It's my belief that the important factors about our current situation are these properties of our technology tools and toys:

1. How easy is it for an instructor to use the tool. This could be measured in the number of hours of training required to begin using the tool, and the number of hours required to implement a class.
2. How easy is it for students to use the tool. This could be measured in the number of hours of training required to begin using the tool.
3. What measurable benefit is there. (Has any measurement been done at all?)
4. Cost of purchase.
5. Cost of ownership. This would include support and administration costs.

This line of thinking brings me around to seeing that I must've already defined some goals. It looks like I'm thinking that technology should:

1. Be easy for instructors and students to use
2. Have a measurable impact on student learning
3. Be inexpensive to purchase and maintain

I'd also like to add that I believe that in the near future educational software and teaching components will be "open". By this I mean there will one or two widely accepted XML standards for defining things that might be used in a class such as lecture or presentations; quizes tests and other assessment tools; exercises and labs; etc. I believe any tools we choose should support open standards. This will prevent us (by us I mean instructors and support staff in general) from wasting time developing class modules that we may have to abandon in the future. It will also allow us to easily share with other instructors and take advantage of the nature of Web 2.0.

How do you spell Proselytize?

Yesterday I had a revelation. My mission to spread Education 2.0 in the Dry has turned into a something akin to a religious mission. (If religious analogies make you uncomfortable why don't you stop reading now. I'm not saying I'm more popular than the Beatles, but there I can see where some individuals may be upset by my comparisons.)

I've seen the light of Education 2.0 and I want to spread the message and open the eyes of those around me. Education 2.0 is so simple to use and has such potential to improve education ... I just want to spread the word. But I'm worried that my zeal may turn away those I'm trying to help. I can almost feel the office doors slamming as I walk down the hall, and hear the whispers "maybe if we're quiet he'll just go away."

I can totally understand and relate to this attitude. I can't even count the number of times I've been told about some piece of hardware or software application that was going to make my life better/easier only to be disappointed. And when I first heard about Web 2.0 my first thought was "here we go again ..."

Now, when I try to convince educators and instructors to try Education 2.0 I hear these arguments:

1. I'm an English teacher (or Math or Art or Kindergarden teacher) and it's too hard for me to learn something new.
2. My students are already learning, and my class is full of lecture and other activities. There isn't time to add anything new.
3. I don't teach online classes, so I don't need this.
   

These arguments are perfectly valid, but I am on a mission tell people that:

1. I'm an English teach (or Math or Art or Kindergarden teacher) and it's too hard for me to learn something new.
   Education 2.0 is NOT about you. You don't need to blog or create videos, let your students do it. Let them participate. And if you do want to use it yourself, Web 2.0 by definition is point-and-click; so it's easy to use.
   
2. My students are already learning, and my class is full of lecture and other activities. There isn't time to add anything new. All you need to do is add the activities, you can still lecture. Again, it's for the students to do, not for you.
   
3. I don't teach online classes, so I don't need this.This works just well for students in traditional classes as it does online classes.
   

What I've found is that no amount of talking convinces anyone. What they need to do is experience it for themselves. It's amazing how quickly people pick it up when they take 30 minutes to start a blog or create a youtube video. And every group or individual who I've worked with has quickly seen the light and become a believer.

But how to get more people to take the 30 minutes to do that?

So be warned ... I will soon be biking to your neighborhood and knocking on your door! I am on a mission.