榴莲视频

将在线学习外包是对学生的不负责

<榴莲视频 class="standfirst">诺拉·卡罗尔(Nora Carrol)称,把线上学习交给第三方“合作伙伴”对学生来说并不总是有效,反而是质量保证上的一个盲点
七月 26, 2021
Source: istock

点击阅读英文原文


近年来,许多美国大学越来越频繁地将在线学习转移给承包商,将他们定位为“合作伙伴”。他们管理从入学到毕业和认证的一切事物,并提供基于网络的学习平台,包括异步、实时或混合形式的所有音频、视频和文本材料。这种外包的结果令人担忧。

如果承包商能把事情做得更好,提供在应对大量客户时至关重要的流程上的专业性和管理能力的话,那么任何行业或部门使用承包商本身都没有错。然而,这些第叁方的做法是错误的,他们放弃了教学设计中的最佳实践,忽略了学习者行为和交流的关键因素;而这些错失的部分在过去数十年中已广为人知。

在最好的情况下,在线教育是一种丰富的、引人入胜的体验,整合了全球各地的资源,并为学生提供了可靠的途径来接触不同的思想和人,包括他们可能不会遇到的教师和同学。在线教育背后的动态是复杂的,要求运营者关注每个细节,及时应对问题或询问,以及出色的程序管理技能。

第叁方的平台在很多方面都存在不足。这种学习框架最初是为了举办大型开放式网络课程(惭辞辞肠蝉)而设计的,这种课程不提供学分,对互动的需求也不大,但它不能很好地适应授予学分、理论驱动的高等教育的需求。它们过于依赖单向视频和一页接一页的滚动文本,对图像支持不足。

其结果是线上版的“高速公路催眠”;偶尔点一下“下一个”按键并不能缓解无聊。虽然许多课程确实包括在线讨论,但它们通常都是对指定案例或阅读的回答,很少为学生提供整合他们自己的工作或个人经历的机会。教学质量参差不齐,有的糟糕透顶,充斥着过时和满是错误的内容,以及不清晰的视觉效果;而有的则非常好,拥有持续的管理和技术支持。这两种极端情况表明,无论是承包商还是雇佣他们的高校都缺乏标准。

哪怕是在学生知道教师是谁的情况下,更麻烦的还是缺少与教师的交流。教职工被描述为主持人或召集人,并以谈话领袖的身份出现。评分通常是由助教或助教团队完成的;但助教的名头只是一个标签,其背后并非有明确身份或资质证书的人。考虑到每门课的学生数量很大,成绩好转可能需要数周而非几天时间,这与快节奏的在线环境的预期不符。

这些令人不满意的经历可能会破坏近年来在线教育取得的卓越进步。我花了18年时间在4所高等教育机构担任网络课程开发人员和在职成人教育教师。这期间,在线教育从基于磁盘的计算机会议变为教学软件,又变为全面的学习管理系统。在线教育前进的每一步都代表着对学习者、教师和其高校有利的进步。

我也曾作为成人学习者在3个不同平台学习过课程,其中有一家领先的开发银行提供的为期一天的演示,也有英国顶级大学提供的为期3个月的证书学习。结论是什么?高等教育向第叁方提供者的战略和战术转移并不能可靠地服务于任何人的利益。这就引出了另一个问题:外部监督者在哪里?

高等教育的监督在结构、重点和报告机制方面差别很大。美国注重认证,认证机构按地区和专题专业组织。在加拿大、英国、欧盟和澳大利亚,这些组织是国家或联邦机构,强调质量保证和确定的标准,提供有时限的注册,而不是认证。

尽管如此,各国调查过程是相似的,都在学习体验的设计和交付这两个评估领域对高校政策进行审查。总的目标是实现经过验证的线上和线下的“最佳实践”。一些监管人员确实对文凭和作弊作坊提出了警告。然而,用关键词搜索与在线学习相关的内容却一无所获。监管机构没有将第叁方平台作为影响制度诚信的一个因素,因此他们没有讨论互动过少、匿名过多的在线学习的相关风险。这种缺乏关注是令人不安和吃惊的,因为监督者通常致力于仔细的程序审查,并对剧烈变化感到怀疑。

在过去一年里,在线学习被一股不受欢迎的力量推动着——一场全球性大流行病。在校外提供学习项目方面面临的前所未有的压力让许多高校措手不及,这本身就可能导致糟糕的选择。

在另一场危机到来之前,高等教育作为一个行业和事业需要停下脚步,重新考虑这种大规模外包课程的做法。?

诺拉·卡罗尔是教育有限责任公司(Educative, LLC)的所有人和总裁,该公司是华盛顿特区的一家成人教育和商业支持咨询公司。

本文由陆子惠为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> 相关文章
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (5)
These scams are unfortunately not limited to the USA. One similar example in the UK is Essex's 'partnership' with Kaplan. Naked profiteering with the regulatory bodies having their heads stuck in the sand.
Your comment about Essex' partnership with Kaplan is ill-informed. The partnership was created in 2006 specifically intended to deliver degrees (rather than MOOC's) from the outset. Every new University of Essex Online program undergoes rigorous approval processes directly overseen by University of Essex the involve both internal academic input and external academic input. Programme that do not see the standard are not approved and I can authoritatively tell you that such programmes have been stopped in the past. Every University of Essex Online module is delivered by a named academic member of staff that students interact with. Every student also has a separate academic advisor who remains with them for the duration of their studies. All University of Essex Online students receive detailed written feedback and a grade for their assessed work within 7 days of submitting it. University of Essex Online is the only online degree provider with a Gold ranking in the Uk Governments Teaching Excellence Framework. University of Essex Online has also had among the highest student satisfaction scores in the UK (>90%) ever since it began with the overall student satisfaction outcome for 2021 measured at 95%. If you are wondering, I am a Professor and the former Dean of Partnerships at Essex that has been very careful to avoid all of the pitfall of private partnerships written about in Nora Carrol's interesting article. I think the negative post by artthe about the Essex-Kaplan Partnership is not at all fair or based upon any of the facts.
I understand your need, as the former Dean of Partnerships, to defend institutional reputation; but I disagree with the interpretation offered. I was asked to 'teach' on one of the online programmes and to provide quality check reviews of specific modules. I ran away in disbelief after seeing the paperwork, the 'quality' of course materials and the tick-box approach to education. I am pretty sure that the standard degrees offered by Essex (at least in my field) are far more robust than what I saw was being sold to students through the online programme. Hence, the need, in my most humble opinion, for focused oversight of such online programmes/partnerships by regulatory bodies. Enough said.
Business online
All of our University of Essex Online provision is subject to the review and oversight processes by the Quality Assurance Agency which they have met the standards for on numerous occasions. Our online programmes are delivered in a different way but this does not mean they are not robust and of very high quality. Our online programmes and the flexible learning methods we have carefully created provide many students with an opportunity to study towards a degree who would other wise not have the opportunity to do so. For example, people whose circumstances mean they cannot attend university on the traditional way. Those supporting families that cannot afford to leave work, frontline service personnel, those who were forced to leave education early because of caring or other responsibilities. Our online degrees make an enormous contribution to rebalance university inequality and exclusion. If you do not like the different approach we take to achieve this then that is you choice not to work with us as one of our tutors and we respect that. However, please desist from making unwarranted and unsubstantiated negative comments that undermine the degrees of all those online students who are trying to improve themselves by learning in often very difficult circumstances. As I have previously mentioned the quality of University of Essex Online Degrees is high and has on numerous occasions an in numerous ways (TEF, QAA, NSS etc) been independently confirmed as such. Elitist and exclusionary attitudes towards the important role online learning offers are unhelpful and unwelcome.