Why Online Courses are not just for students

The MOOC spectre

There has been a lot of hand wringing and excitement about the push toward online learning, and especially MOOCs - Massive Open Online Courses. With apologies to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I want to say that I've been to the MOOC, and I don't mind.

MOOCs offer free college courses online. There are a number of organizations offering these MOOCs, all with variations on a basic approach (e.g. Coursera, edX, Udacity). In general, the courses are conducted entirely via the Internet, the instruction happens asynchronously (i.e. not in "real time"), and literally tens of thousands of "students" can be enrolled in any one course. Oh, and they're free.

There are lots of reasons to be excited and scared (depending on your position) about the possibilities and implications of MOOCs. Imagine the possibility of packaging the best instruction by the best professors from the world's best colleges and universities and giving it away for free to anyone with time and an internet connection. A lot of people see MOOCs, and online learning in general, as the coming "disruptive technology" for higher education. Like mp3s and Napster to the music industry, or Orbitz and Travelocity to the travel industry.

While MOOCs are indeed new, online teaching is not. The reality for most colleges and universities is that online instruction is already here. It's not just available through Phoenix or Coursera; it has penetrated the bricks and mortar of nearly every institution in the country. My institution has been offering online and hybrid courses for a number of years now. This coming fall, over 200 of our courses will be offered either fully online or as hybrid courses (mostly online but meeting in person periodically). I'll be teaching my first online courses this fall as well. Online instruction at my institution is entirely voluntary for faculty (at the moment), but there is real professional and social pressure to engage with online tools and to figure out how to adapt them (or adapt to them) for teaching.

MOOCs as Faculty Opportunity

There are lots of questions about how online instruction compares to face-to-face instruction, and what it means for students, but for the moment, I want to draw your attention to the opportunities that MOOCs offer to other instructors. In a nutshell, MOOCs give college instructors an opportunity to see how other college instructors teach online (and maybe to learn something too). This is invaluable. It's an open (and dirty) secret that college faculty are not really taught how to teach. We've been trained to do research (especially those with PhDs), and then we're hired as faculty and someone says, "By the way, you've got to teach these classes too." The pressures on faculty to do online learning have only compounded the depth of this pedagogical ignorance. What an opportunity to be able to see how another professor does the deed.

While on sabbatical, I took the opportunity to try out some MOOCs, initially out of sheer curiosity, but also in a sort of blind assumption that these online courses would offer me an easy and convenient way to brush up on my technical skills for both research and teaching. Between October 2012 and March 2013, I took three courses through Coursera:

• Computing for Data Analysis, taught by Dr. Roger Peng from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This course was focused on learning how to use R for data analysis. R is a statistical and graphical programming language and software package, and it is probably the hottest thing for researchers around the world who do statistical analysis (and it's free!).
• An Introduction to Interactive Programming in Python, co-taught by Drs. Joe Warren, Scott Rixner, John Greiner, and Stephen Wong from Rice University. This course was focused on learning how to use Python to build simple, interactive applications. Python is a "high level" programming language (some would say a 'scripting' language) that is used by a wide variety of organizations - from Google and Yahoo to NASA - for an incredible variety of computer applications, especially online. Python is also the primary programming language for interacting with ArcGIS, an industry-standard Geographic Information System (GIS) that I teach and use for research.
• Data Analysis, taught by Dr. Jeff Leek from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This course was focused on learning how to apply statistics for data analysis using R. When I enrolled, I did not realize that Professors Peng and Leek were from the same institution, but as it turned out, they structured their courses to be complementary. In fact, it was recommended that students enrolling in Dr. Leek's course either have experience with R or else take Dr. Peng's class first.

Summarizing the Coursera experience

The courses all followed a common organizational scheme, which apparently reflects Coursera's pedagogical philosophy. Each course lasted from 4 to 8 weeks.

Lecture

Each week, the instructors posted roughly two hours worth of video lectures, broken up in to 15 to 20 minute segments. These videos were viewable through the course website, on YouTube, or could be downloaded to a personal computer and played offline. Videos were closed captioned, and transcripts of these videos, along with PowerPoint slides and other learning aids, were made available for download.

Testing

Each week, there was a quiz. Quizzes were multiple choice and graded automatically with immediate feedback on the score achieved, as well as what questions I got right and wrong. In most cases, I could retake the quiz up to three times in order improve my score. Maybe "quiz" is the wrong word. Although they were generally 5 to 10 questions at most, and multiple choice, these were not the kinds of quizzes you could just bang through. Each quiz, regardless of the class, took me a minimum of two hours to complete. Seriously.

Assignments and evaluation

There were open-ended exercises or projects too. These ranged from writing small programs that performed some specific task, to doing statistical analyses and writing up reports. These non-quiz assignments required evaluation by a living person. This is where the technology and technique of MOOCs really becomes apparent. Each of these courses had 30,000 to 100,000 people enrolled. I kid you not. Open-ended evaluation of assignments is done through peer evaluation. After submitting a given assignment (before the deadline had passed), my next task was to evaluate from 4 to 5 assignments submitted by my classmates using a rubric form. I was given the chance to look each one over first, and then I went through one by one to rate how well they met each of the rubric items, and in some cases, to provide written feedback on why I thought they had done something imperfectly or really well. After reviewing the assignments submitted by my peers, I then evaluated my own submission. In order to receive a grade for an assignment, I had to evaluate my peers - before the evaluation deadline (usually a week after the submission deadline). Apparently, research on peer assessment and crowd sourcing have shown that these methods can provide accurate feedback and assessment, as well as being a meaningful learning experience. I don't know if the instructors (or their TAs) checked to see if the peer assessments were accurate, but I'm hoping so.

Classroom interaction

Personal interaction and discussion throughout the class were conducted through forums or message boards where participants posted questions and observations and responded to those posts. The forums are a core part of these online courses and crucial to a successful class experience. Forums are the places where you meet your classmates, (potentially) have an opportunity to have a personal interaction with the instructor, and where you raise your hand (metaphorically speaking) to ask a question or offer an opinion or answer a question. Because it is unlikely, if not impossible, for the instructor to answer individual questions, it really falls to the participants in these fora to support each other. I can say with complete honesty that I would not have passed a couple of these courses without the help of my fellow classmates through these fora.

Results may vary

While all the courses followed a common format, the quality of the experiences was not the same. This shouldn't be surprising; online courses can vary in quality just as much as face-to-face courses. I recently read an ironic (if not sadly funny) story about an online course to teach participants how to run online courses that went seriously awry. As the author of that story pointed out, it was only one instance and did not prove anything. However, it does seem to undermine the idea that online courses will simply steamroll over traditional education by way of simple standardization or a universal solution to teaching. Online courses can suck just as much as in-class courses. So there. Of course, I have never heard of an in-class course at my university being canceled in midstream in order to make adjustments. Usually someone has to be physically incapacitated or die (usually the instructor). But I digress.

Lessons learned

Here are some of the lessons I learned from my experience with Coursera and about online teaching:

• Online courses are no easier than in-class courses. Sure, you can 'attend' class while in your pajamas at home, but that's about the only easier part.
• Online classes require real time self-discipline from students (and instructors). Because online courses are asynchronous, you don't need to sit in a classroom at a specified time during the week, but you do need to figure out how to set aside adequate time for reviewing videos, reading literature, taking quizzes or tests, completing homework, accomplishing final projects, etc. Without time discipline, you will suffer and perform poorly and you might not learn much. Everyone must understand this before beginning an online course. I spent on average 15 - 20 hours a week on each course - maybe I'm just slow.
• "Mastery learning" works. Give students immediate and meaningful feedback immediately AND give them the opportunity to re-attempt homework or quizzes. This is most easily accomplished with the automatically graded quizzes, but it still requires forethought on the part of the instructors to provide useful feedback for incorrect answers as well as devising multiple opportunities to try again. Kudos to the crew from Rice University and Dr. Peng on this one.
• Peer assessment can be a real time saver for grading and it can be a meaningful experience IF the evaluation rubric is set up well. The idea of a grading rubric is simple enough, but it has to be written clearly enough so that anyone (not just the person who wrote it) can understand how to apply it. It helps to provide examples of what constitutes a "superb" versus a "good" analysis (although even those descriptors are so vague as to be useless). A better approach is to clearly identify what qualifies as a minimum level of quality for a given rating (e.g. "The methodology contains these three elements ..."). Also, peers must be able to submit written comments in addition to standardized ratings in order to explain their ratings. It's extremely frustrating to be downgraded for something and not know why or how to improve it. Again, kudos to Rice University and Dr. Peng.
• Narrated PowerPoint presentation lectures are still just PowerPoint presentations - only less exciting. Most of the video lectures in all three courses were essentially narrated PowerPoint presentations. However, the crew at Rice University did things which relieved some of the lecture tedium and, in some cases, actually made lectures fun. They varied the video lectures between still shots of PowerPoint slides, action shots of their computer screen as they worked through problems, action video of them talking and interacting with each other, and even regular gag skits. The variety in content and approach, and the regular movement on the screen really made a difference in helping to hold my attention. I especially liked the way they were able to integrate these little inset videos showing them talking while the larger image displayed either a slide or the speaker's screen. Good use of the technology and excellent co-teaching. Online instructors, are you listening?
• Interaction between students is crucial. I found out the hard way that you MUST read through the fora regularly to see what other people are talking about. Lectures and reading material cannot (and should not) make all of the intellectual connections or provide all of the answers. Participating in interactive fora is like participating in critical group activity - you end up feeling smarter and accomplishing more than you would on your lonesome. I was also really impressed by the degree of support that students were willing to give one another (without giving away the answers!). And it is amazing how helpful it can be when students simply share an "aha!" moment. However, the value of these fora, and how to properly engage in them, may not be apparent to everyone. Students must be told how to effectively get help and help themselves in this brave, new online world. Dr. Peng did an excellent job of explaining how to get help and ask questions in an online environment and it's definitely worth watching this lecture.

Although it ate up six months of my life, I am really glad that I took the time to experience how MOOCs work. I have brushed up on some technical skills. These experiences have also helped me, as a college professor, to think about my approach to online teaching and to teaching in general. Whatever else they may prove to be, MOOCs are an opportunity for faculty to learn from other faculty.

GIS Across the Curriculum

This past weekend my department chair Steve Matchak and I attended the GIS & Spatial Thinking in the Undergraduate Curriculum Conference at Bucknell University, in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. The conference brought together about 70+ people from 50 schools across the country to discuss ways of better integrating spatial applications and geospatial technology in undergraduate education. The event also served the purpose of fostering important networking opportunities.
While there were a number of schools, including Bucknell, that had well established GIS programs (in some form or another), there were equally as many who were there looking for ideas on how to get things started.  What struck me was how many of the attendees were not from Geography or GIS-centric programs.  More importantly, the most consistent message of the conference discussions was that GIS should not be  confined to Geography or GIS-specific programs.  Bucknell is an example of this philosophy in action.  Although it has had a robust Geography program for some time, and its Geographers have been strong advocates of GIS at the school, the rapid and sustained diffusion of GIS across the school has been spear-headed by Janine Glathar, a GIS Specialist, from their Library and IT department (and the organizer of the conference). She is academically non-aligned, and she says that this 'neutral' position has been important to her success in helping more departments integrate this technology into their research and curricula (note that this is the same model adopted by Harvard's Center for Geographic Analysis). In fact, quite a number of the attendees and presenters were from Library IT departments looking to develop the ideas and the capacity to bring in this technology to support faculty and students across their schools.
This expansive, trans-disciplinary perspective of GIS was really reinforced by the keynote speakers and a number of the presenters and attendees who emphasized qualitative applications of GIS, primarily in the humanities.
I think a lot of us were particularly struck by the keynote presentation "Geographic Imagination in the Digital Humanities" by Anne Knowles from Middlebury College. She talked about historical applications of GIS, and specifically, examples of work by her and her students to understand and represent the World War II Holocaust.  Her graphical representations were clever and beautiful and moving.  One might say "cartography at its best," except that a number of these representations were not 'cartographic' in the conventional sense, and they certainly did not use GIS.  The one that sticks with me is an image of a long, snaking line of black silhouettes,  clearly prisoners, on a forced march, against a blank, white background, the line of silhouettes diminishing as it winds its way into the distant horizon. This was probably the most subversive message of the conference: abandon the assumption that GIS -and even maps -  are the best or only ways to represent spatial phenomena. Heck, rethink your ideas of what constitutes "space".
The conference was engaging and well worth our time.  We had a lot of really great conversations and the whole experience really gave Steve and I a lot to think about regarding our own program.  We had expected to hear cheerleading for GIS and were prepared to take back strategies to bolster our existing GIS degree program.  We came away with questions about the wisdom of our technique-specific approach.  Maybe we need to think more about specific, topical foci to ground the GIS training.  Maybe we need to look at ways of engaging more of our colleagues in this technology - utilizing our own Digital Geography Laboratory as a GIS hub for the whole institution.
We're waiting for Bucknell to post presentations and materials from the conference.  As soon as they do, I'll post a link to those here as well.  In the meantime, here are some of the more interesting resources discussed at the conference:

• PLOTS Balloon Mapping Kit - A low-cost kit that you can purchase online to do a class-based aerial photography exercise using a balloon and a camera (remote sensing on the cheap!)
• NEATLINE is a geotemporal exhibit-builder that allows you to create beautiful, complex maps and narrative sequences from collections of archives and artifacts, and to connect your maps and narratives with timeline. 
• Worldmapper is a collection of world maps, where territories are re-sized on each map according to the subject of interest - otherwise known as cartograms.
• Floating Sheep - a site dedicated to mapping and analyzing user generated geocoded data. The results provide one glimpse of what internet users (in the aggregate) think about particular places. See the now (in)famous map of racist tweets following President Obama's reelection.  
• SPACIT - Education for spatial citizenship in Europe. 
• TeachGIS - because no one should have to face GIS alone.  A resource (coming soon) for GIS instructors. 
• i-Tree - Tools for assessing and managing community forests.
• The Stanford Spatial History Project - a place for a collaborative community of scholars to engage in creative visual analysis to further research in the field of history.

Sustainability as Transdisciplinary (but not-so-diverse) Praxis

According to the most recent report on Sustainability in Higher Education, students graduating in 2008 were less likely to be "environmentally literate" than they were when the survey was administered back in 2001. The report attributes this backward slide in eco-awareness to a lack of exposure to ecological principles in the curriculum. The irony is that the report also showed a greening of physical campus infrastructure (e.g. recycling, renewable and reduced energy use, etc.) and ever greater pledges of commitment to reduced environmental impact by the campus administration and leadership. The report does not rank or rate individual campuses. I am not sure how our College compares to the report's overall findings, though it occurs to me that we have a campus "sustainability officer," and we report on our progress in greening our physical infrastructure, but we have no coordinator or measure of sustainability in our curriculum.

Over the winter break I attended a workshop at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia to learn ways to better integrate environmental sustainability into our curriculum. The workshop was sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), and its purpose was to help "faculty leaders of all disciplines who wish to develop curriculum change programs around sustainability on their campuses." My original purpose in attending was to figure out how to improve our Department's new Sustainabilty concentration, but the workshop was actually aimed at showing us how to encourage and assist any or all faculty, in any or all disciplines, to integrate sustainability into their curricula: anthropology, biology, business, chemistry, English, foreign languages, geography, history, philosophy, political science, sociology, etc. The key, we learned, is to respect individual faculty members as experts in their respective disciplines, and to allow them to figure out how best to integrate sustainability. Our job is simply to educate or encourage appreciation of sustainability, and guide discussion and planning of curriculum changes.

The idea of breaking down disciplinary barriers was strong. One of the articles we read in preparation for the workshop went so far as to argue that schools should avoid establishing specific departments or programs in sustainability. Sustainability, they argued, will be more successful in the long term if it is a perspective or value that permeates all disciplines rather than being the protected turf of a particular department or group of experts. I know this must have raised some hackles, but they were raised quietly. This perspective makes sense to me. The concept of sustainability or sustainable development or environmental sustainability is supposed to occur at the intersection of economics, society/culture and the environment. How do we create, and sustain, a world that meets the needs of the present and the future across all of these domains? No one discipline or expert can possibly fathom all aspects of this problem (though Geographers come close!).

Inherent in this transdiciplinary ideal is an appreciation for the value of a diversity of perspectives. Indeed, our workshop hosts very deliberately admitted a diversity of attendees (37 in total): a wide variety of academic and professional disciplines, men and women, older and younger, tenured and untenured. Good. But somehow, racial or ethnic diversity, as far as I could tell, fell well short. I think, though I could be wrong, that I was the only racial/ethnic minority in the room. Not so good. Why does this matter? It matters for the same reason that it matters to involve people with different disciplinary training, with different forms of experience, or with different cultural orientations; different kinds of people, with different kinds of experience, bring different kinds of perspectives to what may appear to be the same issues (and to which people with the same perspective may be blind). For all of the self-congratulatory rhetoric about our post-racial society (look, we've got a Black President!), race/color/ethnicity remain defining aspects of Americans' identities, experiences, and for too many, their chances of success and happiness in life.

Low racial or ethnic diversity is a widely acknowledged problem in academia in general. However, I think it is especially problematic for sustainability. One of the most important transformations (or disruptions) in Environmentalism was the emergence of the Environmental Justice movement - the push to acknowledge the unique needs and problems of marginalized or oppressed groups in environmental problems and how these were interrelated with larger social (in)justice problems. Classic environmentalism was about saving the natural (i.e. non-human) environment and about averting catastrophic degradation of our world; not a bad thing. What often went unacknowledged, however, was how common environmental problems weighed most heavily on minority and working class or poor communities. Worse, efforts to cleanup or protect some places often mean simply displacing environmental burdens on to other places with less economic or political clout (read: marginalized communities). The issues go deeper, but the point is that these were aspects of our environmental crisis that were either ignored or were simply invisible, in part, because they were not within the experiences of the more privileged (i.e. well-heeled, White male) leaders of the early Environmental movement.

Today's Environmentalism is better for having acknowledged the social justice aspects of environmental problems. As with most big problems, however, our work is nowhere near done. My own anecdotal experience is that the socio-economic dimensions of sustainability continue to be underappreciated or misunderstood (why am I always the only one asking about the distributional implications of these efforts?). For sustainability to succeed, it must penetrate disciplinary boundaries AND it must incorporate the widest array of human perspectives. Otherwise, we're likely to miss something important.