File this under "there's nothing new under the sun."
One of the most talked about and exciting prospects in my field (educational technology) right now is massive, open, online learning. I'm picking on Khan Academy in this post, but it's only one of many sources that embrace a similar set of ideas. We've all heard many times over recent years how making learning available through online sources will be better for students (who can work at their own pace), lead to new insights on learning (though data analysis of student performance) and lighten the load on teachers (who can function more as coaches, without having to waste time delivering the same content over and over).
This all sounds awesome and I hope it comes to fruition. There's just one problem...this has all happened before.
In 1958, almost 60 years ago, B. F. Skinner (yes, that B. F. Skinner) wrote an article called Teaching Machines. In it, he describes how new technology, combined with new insights into teaching, enable educators to build these wonderful teaching machines which guide students through a pre-set lesson, require them to complete a series of exercises, and give them immediate feedback. If you take the time to read the article, I think you'll find that the descriptions he gives of the teaching machines is surprisingly modern. With a few changes in terminology, he could easily be describing a modern MOOC.
On the benefits of mass, yet personalized, instruction, Skinner writes "The machine itself, of course, does not teach. It simply brings the student into contact with the person who composed the material it presents. It is a labor-saving device because it can bring one programmer into contact with an indefinite number of students. This may suggest mass production, but the effect upon each student is surprisingly like that of a private tutor."
(Tell me that you can't imagine that falling from the lips of an educational reform advocate at next year's TED conference.)
This worries me.
It worries me because I, like many people, want to believe that massive open education can revolutionize teaching and learning in the internet age. But if the philosophy and technology to put this into practice already existed 50 to 60 years ago (in a future entry I'll get into the origins of open education in the 1960's), then why....didn't it? Why didn't this revolution already happen? Maybe the technology wasn't as good then as it is today, but surely if computer-guided education is really that much better, Skinner's ideas would have taken hold all this time, and we would be in the middle, not the beginning, of a MOOC revolution.
One of the most talked about and exciting prospects in my field (educational technology) right now is massive, open, online learning. I'm picking on Khan Academy in this post, but it's only one of many sources that embrace a similar set of ideas. We've all heard many times over recent years how making learning available through online sources will be better for students (who can work at their own pace), lead to new insights on learning (though data analysis of student performance) and lighten the load on teachers (who can function more as coaches, without having to waste time delivering the same content over and over).
This all sounds awesome and I hope it comes to fruition. There's just one problem...this has all happened before.
In 1958, almost 60 years ago, B. F. Skinner (yes, that B. F. Skinner) wrote an article called Teaching Machines. In it, he describes how new technology, combined with new insights into teaching, enable educators to build these wonderful teaching machines which guide students through a pre-set lesson, require them to complete a series of exercises, and give them immediate feedback. If you take the time to read the article, I think you'll find that the descriptions he gives of the teaching machines is surprisingly modern. With a few changes in terminology, he could easily be describing a modern MOOC.
On the benefits of mass, yet personalized, instruction, Skinner writes "The machine itself, of course, does not teach. It simply brings the student into contact with the person who composed the material it presents. It is a labor-saving device because it can bring one programmer into contact with an indefinite number of students. This may suggest mass production, but the effect upon each student is surprisingly like that of a private tutor."
(Tell me that you can't imagine that falling from the lips of an educational reform advocate at next year's TED conference.)
This worries me.
It worries me because I, like many people, want to believe that massive open education can revolutionize teaching and learning in the internet age. But if the philosophy and technology to put this into practice already existed 50 to 60 years ago (in a future entry I'll get into the origins of open education in the 1960's), then why....didn't it? Why didn't this revolution already happen? Maybe the technology wasn't as good then as it is today, but surely if computer-guided education is really that much better, Skinner's ideas would have taken hold all this time, and we would be in the middle, not the beginning, of a MOOC revolution.