Topic 2 – The Teacher of Tomorrow

Image by Iñaki del Olmo from Unsplash

Open Educational Resources (OER) and Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have made it possible for several people to learn topics and subjects they would not otherwise have had access to. Furthermore, many MOOCs enable students to learn topics by listening to lectures by world-leading academics in their respective fields. While students have never had it so good, what about the teaching community? Will OER and MOOCs irrevocably change the role of teachers to something akin to knowledge managers? Will classrooms and classroom lectures ever be the same again?

In his excellent book, Tony Bates (2019) argues that “The role of the instructor then will shift to providing guidance to learners on where and how to find content, how to evaluate the relevance and reliability of content, what content areas are core and what peripheral, and to helping students analyze, apply and present information, within a strong learning design that focuses on clearly defined learning outcomes, particularly with regard to the development of skills.” (Bates (2019)). He forecasts that “students will increasingly look to institutions for learning support and help with the development of skills needed in a digital age rather than with the delivery of content.“(Bates (2019)). Therefore, according to Bates, the teaching landscape will indeed change radically, with teachers tasked with facilitating a student’s learning and Universities responsible for supporting knowledge acquisition rather than imparting that knowledge to students.

Tony is absolutely a world expert on this topic, but I do find myself at odds with some of his opinions. I do agree with him that MOOCs will not be a panacea to student learning, but rather might largely replace the one-to-many classroom lectures on core topics of a subject. This is what MOOCs do best – allow students to learn these core topics at their own pace, from world experts. However, I believe this will free up teachers to provide teaching services on what MOOCs can fundamentally never do, provide personalised instruction and feedback to deepen a student’s knowledge, guide them to form connections between a topic and related topics within a discipline as well as across disciplines, and essentially inspire them toward mastery of a topic. This process requires both professional mastery and sensitivity from the teacher, which I believe a MOOC or any computer programme could never provide. Hence, I believe the teacher’s role might shift to guiding the student’s learning, rather than guiding students on ‘how to learn’ as I think Bates suggests. Such personalised instruction and feedback has been demonstrated to substantially improve student learning (Bloom (1984)), though note this paper studied one-one instruction rather than small-group supervision. Notably, both Cambridge University, UK and Oxford University, UK, have for many, many years offered such small-group tutorials by domain experts, in addition to classroom lectures.

What would this mean for Universities? Will the most preferred Universities be those that offer the best learning support services? I am not so sure. I feel the most-valued Universities will still be those that offer the best teaching, leading to the best learning outcomes. Of course, the syllabi will be a combination of fundamental topics in a field and those particularly relevant to a modern-day digital context, for e.g. communication skills and knowledge management. Following on from my point above, I believe the emphases in Universities will shift toward teaching through interactive small-group supervisions while classroom lectures will be replaced by University-validated online resources for students to gain knowledge on the core topics on a subject. I believe assessment will remain a combination of coursework and classroom examinations, both assessing the understanding and depth of knowledge acquired by a student in a subject.

Most importantly, I have come to see OERs and MOOCs as an opportunity for higher-education institutions, rather than a threat. The opportunity is for OERs and MOOCs to free up time-resources for teachers to meet with much smaller groups of students, in interactive settings, to actively guide them toward mastery of the subject content and making connections across disciplines. Teachers would be valued and rewarded for the depth of their knowledge and their felicity in imparting it. The best and most valued Universities would be those that invest in substantial numbers of high-quality, teaching faculty to offer such small-group supervisions.  Such a path would keep learning at the centre, which after all is what education is all about! It promises to be an exciting time.

References

  1. Bates, T. (2019) Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Teaching and Learning. (2nd edition)
  2. Bloom (1984) The 2 Sigma problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher. 13:6, pp. 4-16

Posted by Nitin Williams

Post-doctoral researcher in Neuroscience Methods at Aalto University, Finland
Uncategorized - 1 Comment

Connecting Week – looking back, looking forward

Image by TheAndrasBarta from Pixabay

I am a bit late on my Connecting Week post, which actually gives me an opportunity to reflect from afar on that week of introductions and on meeting my group members:

I am blessed with very pleasant and supportive group members and facilitators. While everybody teaches in some capacity, each member comes from a different cultural or geographical context, with different levels of experience. This makes it possible for everyone to share something novel from their perspective. Despite the diversity, I was struck by how much our situations had in common. Each of us was in some teaching organization/University, many have family and try valiantly to balance work and family, some of us have lost our loved ones recently, all of us feel a bit overwhelmed navigating digital technologies and we hope this course will help us cope and ideally thrive in this strange digital environment we find ourselves in!

For the Connecting Week, we created a Padlet to introduce ourselves to each other, and the ONL211 community. It was great fun contributing to the Padlet, and read what each of the group members had written about themselves. We each shared a fictional character we identified with. Rather than characters from real-life movies, it was striking how many of us identified with characters from comics or animated movies! How says those movies are just for kids? I suppose there is a kid inside all of us and importantly, we feel comfortable displaying that side of ourselves to the group. Looking forward to the ONL journey with these good people! 🙂

Posted by Nitin Williams

Post-doctoral researcher in Neuroscience Methods at Aalto University, Finland
Uncategorized - Leave a comment

Topic 1 – reflections

Figure. Graphic illustration of my online software usage, categorised by use modes (visitor/resident) and use contexts (personal/professional)

It’s been a hectic but fascinating two weeks! We have received a massive amount of information on making sense of one’s digital identity, i.e. what characterises one’s online presence and behaviour. Below are some reflections on my own digital identity:

I find it very useful to think of online software as just a tool, to be used to do something faster and better than I would have otherwise. In this framework, I would use online software in a professional setting, for the purpose of promoting my own research (e.g. Google Scholar, Website – work), to participate in digital knowledge networks and disseminate one’s research (Twitter), to better communicate or collaborate with my colleagues (Zoom, Slack, Google Docs, Skype, Email – professional) or share my computer code with other researchers (GitHub). The above graphic illustration, following David White’s framework (White & Cornu (2011)), reveals that I should more actively maintain my work website and more actively use Twitter to effectively promote and disseminate my work, and to participate in digital knowledge networks. The same illustration reveals that I am way too passive on Facebook and Whatsapp, to maintain or nurture any relationships with family and friends. I need to change this!

Rather than a large digital footprint, I find it useful to think of a streamlined online presence. I have developed three principles that I will use to guide my online behaviour, 1.) Less is more: Only use the least number of online software possible, while also accomplishes your purposes. 2.) Use for purpose: Ensure you use the software/tool only for the purpose you intend for it. Think about its purpose beforehand 3.) Time-limited use: Ensure the time spent on any software is only a small fraction of your total time. The time spent with a software should reflects its importance in accomplishing your purposes.

With these principles in mind, I have decided to: 1.) Update my work website, 2.) Organise my ResearhGate profile, 3.) Close my two personal blogs since I no longer update them, 4.) Close my academia.edu profile since I now use ResearchGate for the same purpose, 5.) Unsubscribe from many Facebook groups I am part of, to streamline my identity, 6.) Update my GitHub profile with recently released MATLAB toolboxes, 7.) Update my e-mail signature with some of these links, 8.) Build my Twitter profile once I have my own research group and 9.) Think about starting a YouTube channel once I have regular teaching responsibilities.

I will be completing points 1-7 during ONL211. I feel tired already! 🙂

Posted by Nitin Williams

Post-doctoral researcher in Neuroscience Methods at Aalto University, Finland
Uncategorized - 5 Comments