In considering the place of video curated libraries, I have mentioned the usefulness and accessibility of such instances (namely Lynda.com) for learning. I believed it was a good modality for learning something such as photographic composition and the instructor did a fine job of organizing the course into digestible chapters. Microlearning was also brought up in discussions as a very fitting approach which could fully utilize video-based learning, with the convenience of learning at one’s pace when one wants to. This has me thinking of what video curated libraries would not be as suitable for.
Many credential granting institutions now have courses that offer multimedia (usually video) resources. While there are online institutions that will grant some sort of credential for video courses, the general acceptance of the public and employers still has not taken place. Why is this so? It has been brought up in discussions of our MALAT cohort that simply completing a video does not necessarily mean a skill or knowledge has been attained. In fact, there is even the challenge of determining whether the registered learner is the one viewing the content (though some companies are using technology such as facial recognition to overcome this).
From my research thus far, while there are scenarios where video curated libraries are great for learning, such as with procedural knowledge and task-oriented training, I find that for higher order learning and more longer and thorough education, there must be more than just video to ensure that learners are cognitively still following along and still motivated to continue. Video is a great resource, but not the solution to all learning regimens.
I feel the same way in general – it’s pretty hard to view just a straight-ahead video as more than a resource. A course or similar learning experience, however defined, consists of more than viewing – it involves engagement such as discussion, sharing, interacting, assessment, in different ways. Interestingly, some early educational television broadcasts had such elements as phone-in sessions where viewers could ask questions of guests, or mail in an assignment after viewing the broadcast, and have it marked and returned for feedback. Educators have been thinking about this for a long time.
Hi Irwin, I really think that the best course experience should be multimodal which can allow for learners who may have different learning preferences a chance to try out something different or new. It can help with engagement and cognitive load when things are shaken up a bit and students are not doing the exact same task, such as watching videos over and over. I didn’t know about the interaction that early educational broadcasts had. It is interesting that this has been thought about for so long, but there’s no simple answer even in the age of the Internet.
Hi George,
Thanks for your posts – it was interesting to read how you are building your journey through your exploration.
As I’m sure you did, I found Krista’s section in Team Awesome Sauce’s exploration of neurodiverse learners very interesting. Wondering if you found or read about any accommodations that Lynda.com uses, such as increased ability for users to leverage screen readers in discussion forums?
Lastly, throughout your inquiry, what (if anything) did you learn about leading practices or design principles that would help to provide a multi-modal learning experience? The example that Irwin provided above wherein television viewers could call in to ask questions of the subject matter experts sounds so simple! It got me thinking of live Tweet-Chats, where participants all sign into Twitter and share ideas and comments around a specific set of questions / discussion points by following an event hashtag. I have participated in a few of these Tweet-Chats, and found them valuable, mostly because it was impossible for me to attend an event, but was still provided access to some of the participants.
Have you found any other ideas that could help to accomplish the same?
Thanks in advance, Karen.
Hi Karen, thanks for the comments and questions. For Lynda.com, I did not see any specific type of accommodation beyond standard captions. They may exist, but unfortunately it was not my focus to seek them out. Alas I only had the free trial period to really explore, but my DeeGee colleagues may have more information. I found the learning that Lynda.com to be very individualized in the sense that you are learning alone without interaction with others (including the instructor). It makes sense as the course is marketed as consisting of self-paced and self-directed videos.
For your second question, again it wasn’t really my focus as cognitive load in of itself was such a huge topic, but the tie-in would be that multi-modal learning shouldn’t be cognitively overloading for the learner. There are certain combinations of audio and visual that work based on what the content is and the level of knowledge that the learner already possesses. I like the idea of Tweet-Chats that you brought up. It seems really interesting and coincides with interactive quizzes that I’ve read about. Interactive quizzes scattered throughout the lesson can be a good break from material and allows for a check-in on whether the learner has picked up on a concept. I know Khan Academy integrates these quite well (thanks Khan Artists :)).
Typically, there needs to be a degree of synchronicity for discussion to happen (especially for an event), so I’m curious how the conversation continues for Tweet-Chats after the fact since social media is very much an ‘in the moment’ medium.
Indeed. We’re not always as far ahead as we think we are!
Hi George,
This raises the question of what should be required of learners to receive a meaningful credential. Traditional examinations? Assessed assignments? Automatically-assessed exercises? Etc.
Two previous programs I’ve completed relied on exams, and the last program had a completion rate of only 23%. MALAT feels a lot further down the slope by only requiring assignments. Is this OK? Do we know who is actually doing the work? Does any of this devalue the credential?
Hi Jason, I’ve always been more of a fan of assignments because I find exams can only evaluate a particular amount of knowledge at a particular period of time. With regards to assignments, I feel there are many more options for a learner to demonstrate their knowledge and the process of completing an assignment may have some more lasting impressions than a sit-down exam (at least for me). Of course, not being a teacher or instructor I have no formal experience with respect to evaluation.
I feel for online learning there is a tricky obstacle of determining the proper identity of an individual especially for attribution of work. Hopefully technology can come to the rescue with the introduction of biometrics and other methods to accurately identify the learner. It wasn’t so long ago that Turnitin didn’t exist and teachers had to rely on judgement and physically checking references to determine whether plagiarism had occurred.
The completion rate of 23% for your other programs doesn’t look great. I’m assuming you’re referring to online programs. There is research that shows online learning is most suited for motivated individuals which means that it isn’t for all learners or learners have to adapt to this environment. I don’t think the evaluation method devalues the credential, but the rigor of course/program needs to be at a standard. How this is done is another question. I guess this is why there is no fully online institution as of yet that has the same prestige as a traditional brick and mortar institution.
Hi George,
Knowledge is considered by the OED to be “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject”. I think an assignment is like a really-long open-book exam and wonder if we can know that learners have acquired the knowledge?
The 23% completion rate was for a full-time on-campus program, and this was typical of the program in previous years. The completion rate was low mainly because it was a rigorous program.
The academic rigor of programs varies greatly. I don’t think there will ever be a standard.