viernes, 26 de abril de 2013

La visión de los MOOCs ¿está condicionada por la propia experiencia de los autores como alumnos?

En el blog de John Mak  el autor nos cita un párrafo de Stephen Downes

Stephen shares his advice to teachers on online learning where he says:
“When I attended university, for example, I attended some very large classes. I never conversed with my instructor at all. I even had difficulty communicating with the teaching assistant. I was very much on my own. Most online learning offers a greater level of interaction than this.”
Para a continuación él mismo decir en un tono más moderado, quizá tambien por el salto generacional y del entorno cultural propio de John:
Most of the classes I attended were of small class, with at most 30 students, though there were a few mass lectures of more than 90.  We didn’t have teaching assistant for the instructors, and so I wasn’t alone in my learning in class.  I learnt with a small group of around 5-6 students on some occasions in the undergraduate  programs, but then I learnt mostly alone in the postgraduate courses.  That wasn’t surprising, as students studying at the pre-internet time were information deficit and have to find their ways through the library, in search of “knowledge” with books, artifacts or journals.

¿Freud tendría algo que decir de los comentarios de Stephen Downes?
A continuación se desencadena en Facebook este (creo) sabroso e ilustrativo diálogo
·        
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros Freud tendría algo que decir de los comentarios de Stephen Downes
  • John Mak What do you think? 
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros Gracias John por la respuesta e invitación. Pienso que Stephen está muy influido por su experiencia personal (que no es única, sino que representa a un pequeño porcentaje de personas), pero que la forma de combatir esas situaciones es con una organización de la enseñanza para el aprendizaje y la acción tutorial personalizada. Puede ver mis trabajos, en particularhttp://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/115 y http://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/71
    cuedespyd.hypotheses.org
    Simplificando mucho, el futuro de la docencia universitaria ayudada con la tecnología, que en mayor o menor intensidad es toda, se dilucida en dos horizontes. Uno el del acceso abierto a los recursos formativos y a los fondos científicos, separando y adjudicando el valor al reconocimiento y acredita...
  • John Mak Thanks for sharing. I was first introduced to Mastery Learning in 1985, and studied about Benjamin Bloom's hypothesis and the related theories. After years of teaching, I could comment about its application based on my experience and observation. There are certain assumptions made in Mastery Learning (again, I have proposed Assumptions Theory as a basis upon which all Theories could be challenged, validated or tested, and that could be a critical lens for any one to view, from different perspectives, with different angles). I understand that there are always parameters which could not be easily controlled in even the most extensive studies in education, though I would suggest to be cautious in interpreting the studies. First, Mastery Learning works, based principally on a behavioral model, whereas pre-requisite knowledge and skills are tested before the learning, and that mastery of skills could be achieved through a self-learning mode with continuous feedback in the learning process. Second, Mastery Learning works best when the learners are learning skills which have definite learning and performance outcomes (skills, knowledge), and that these outcomes are measurable using the tools used. Third, Mastery Learning relates to individual's performance and so it is a good measure of individual's performance based on an apprenticeship or traineeship model. Even under the Bloom's Taxonomy, the emphasis is still on individual's performance. That also explains why most of our students are assessed individually, without much consideration of assessing individuals under a group or network situation. The one-on-one tutoring sounds like a perfect system, though there is also an implicit assumption that the trainer or mentor would help and support the trainees or mentees at their best. I don't think that is that simple, as I have worked on a number of mentoring projects (as well as traineeship model - with one-on-one) where a number of factors are critical for such learning to work. This includes assumptions such as: a good match of mentor and mentee, a healthy and trustful relationship is established and sustained in the mentoring or training process, and that there is a supportive learning environment for the trainer and trainee etc. There are also other critical factors which need to be considered: trust, power, learning context or situation, incentives and motivation of mentors and mentees or trainer and trainee etc. Are these possible in MOOCs? I wonder!
  • John Mak Here is my previous post on Bloom's Taxonomy and Mastery Learninghttp://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/tag/blooms-taxonomy/
    suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com
    Posts about Bloom’s Taxonomy written by suifaijohnmak
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros La investigación "problema 2 sigma" es criticable por limitada y por otras cosas. Y también la sutoria uno a uno. Pero igual o más lo son otros planteamientos. La cuestión es: Descontados todos los efectos y en igualdad de otras variables, aceptados de forma común unos sistemas de evaluación de la ganancia de aprendizaje, ¿es real la diferencia de CUARENTA PERCENTILES o de 2 desviaciones típicas entre esos dos ambientes de aprendizaje? ¿En el caso de MOOC seguiría siendo de 2 sigma o más? y ¿Inhiben los MOOCs el aprendizaje divergente? Sólo son propuestas de temas para investigaciones.

    No veo ninguna relación con la taxonomía de Bloom salvo que es el mismo autor.

    Sobre la alternativa a los "problemas de Stephen" sugiero lo escrito enhttp://eprints.rclis.org/18658/7/MOOC_zapata_preprint.pdf el epigrafe "Una alternativa complementaria: La individualización del aprendizaje" pag 19 al final.
    Gracias, hoy ya he quitado mucho tiempo a mi trabajo habitual 
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros Ah, la tesis de mi post no es la apología de "mastery learning" sino la diferencia entre "aprendizaje solo con pares" y "la tutoría uno a uno" de cuarenta percentiles, o el limite de 2 signas entre clase convencional y 1x1. Ordenación de ganancia de aprendizaje (simplificando)
    Learning 1x1 > Aprendizaje individualizado (con entornos tecnológicos) > Mastery Learning > Clase convencional > MOOCs
  • Stephen Downes Yes I am influenced by my personal experiences. But that's a strength, not a weakness. I know that the rest of the world is not like me, and I don't prescribe my own experiences to everyone. But I don't prescribe carefully managed and paced learning for everyone either. When I appeal to my own personal experiences, I also appeal to the reader, and ask, in *your* personal experience, would you be comfortable learning like *that*? My method is to draw from my experiences, but to appeal to your experiences. In so doing, I don't treat the student generally as someone who must be prescribed to, but rather, as someone who must be implicated in his or her own learning.
  • John Mak If we are measuring the learning by content, yes, mastery learning sounds logical and effective in ensuring effectiveness in learning. May I refer to this?http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct10/vol68/num02/Lessons-of-Mastery-Learning.aspx In the case of emergent learning in MOOCs, that is where one needs diversity of opinions and perspectives to understand the problems and develop creative and innovative solutions to those problems. xMOOCs could be a good example where people are still grappling with it (due to a lack of a sound business model, and a lot of challenges like identity of participants, plagiarism and cheating, and not being accepted for credit transfer to degree in most universities etc.)
    www.ascd.org
    Founded in 1943, ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) is an educational leadership organization dedicated to advancing best practices and policies for the success of each learner. Our 175,000 members in 119 countries are professional educators from all levels an...
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros Las "propias experiencias" deben ser situadas. Lo que no puedo hacer es justificar una teoría en mis experiencias. O elevar mis experiencias a teoría general. 
    De igual forma, Stephen Downes, no puedo definir mis objetivos como los objetivos de un prog
    rama de aprendizaje. Eso hace imposible un planteamiento grupal de la educación.
    La propia experiencia es una fuente más, muy válida, pero en unión de otras: el análisis, la reflexión, la experimentación, lo que otros han indagado,...
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros John, no puedo evitar un comentario sobre "For instance, hypothesis 1 doesn’t fit the on-line learner, as any normal person can learn anything even without the teachers."
    Me gustaría que alguien me explicase como un alumno, no normal, sino incluso tale
    ntoso puede aprender solo (o en línea) la diferencia entre "igualdad" e "identidad", o entre "variable" y "parámetro". Son dos conceptos de matemáticas elementales, para alumnos de secundaria básica. Si conoce otro colega que lo pueda decir lo agradecería.
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros John, lo que dice es parte de la cuestión. No bastan los pares para que se produzca el aprendizaje divergente, creativo, a veces lo inhiben. Ciertas dinámicas de pares, adecuadamente moderadas, y una vez desencadenado el proceso, pueden contribuir a lo que dicen, pero no es la base.

    Me voy a almorzar 
  • John Mak Thanks Miguel Zapata-Ros for your precious sharing. Have your lunch 
  • John Mak "For instance, hypothesis 1 doesn’t fit the on-line learner, as any normal person can learn anything even without the teachers." Reason behind is that on-line learners can learn anything through various means, PLE/PLN - tools, resources and artifacts (videos, readings, books, audios), knowledgeable others, peers, and not necessarily with teachers.
  • Miguel Zapata-Ros Le he planteado un reto. Le pido que me diga cómo se puede hacer en el caso que le he propuesto. No hay límite de tiempo  Ahora sí, voy a comer, se me pasa la hora.
  • John Mak I wish to check if I have understood your challenging questions correctly: That (1) there is a difference between "learning only with peers" and "tutoring one to one" forty percentile, or the limit of 2 score between conventional class and 1 x 1. (2) Gain of learning management (simplifying) 1 to 1 Learning is better than learning individualized (with technological environments) is better than Mastery Learning is better than conventional class is better than MOOCs. Correct?
  • No hay comentarios:

    Publicar un comentario