MOOCs, museums and schools: natural partners and processes for learningOther
David Greenfield, USA
This is a formal paper.
During the past 25 years, educational technology and computer-based-training has evolved from slide and overhead projectors to CD-ROM to web-based and mobile technologies.
The pedagogy has also evolved and changed. In schools, CBT of the 1980’s gave way to the push technology of the 1990s. Courses took place on closed, local networks, interactions between students and instructors was limited, if at all, and the model of instruction was “sage on the stage” where the instructor simply presented content similar to the talking heads of television news shows.
In the 1990’s, Learning or classroom management systems (LMS and CMS) were introduced. This gave students additional tools and wider access to courses and materials. Yet, there were still limited interactions between student and teachers and teachers continued to use the sage-on-the stage model.
During the 2000s, learning managements systems increased tools (such as testing and assessment) and the technology and learning was centralized and only available to registered students, during the course of the semester. He learning model continued to be about content acquisition, Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, video and audio become available and the instructor became a “guide on the side.”
Development of digital educational material in museums developed along a parallel course- sometimes museums were on the bleeding edge of content development, and sometimes there was a bit of a lag. Many museum educators were actively involved in exploring how digital technologies could benefit their missions of providing quality content to schools.
The recent development of MOOCs (massive open online courses) can provide museums with valuable possibilities for education, community outreach and multi-disciplinary collaboration. MOOCs use decentralized networks (both technological and communal) and provide process-not-device driven educational content in semi and informal learning environments where the students desire to learn overshadows the desire for grades. Althou0gh schools such as Stanford and Harvard are developing MOOCs, but they have not been fully adapted by museums (partially due to their novelty and lack of understanding of process).
In this paper, I will present the results of my current research about MOOCs in museum education. Some of the ideas addressed include: the overlap of education theory and practical applications; lessons learned from academic MOOCs; cost of development; resource sharing; multi-cultural communication for global MOOCs; appropriate and accessible technologies; and content development and management.
Because of the novelty of MOOCs, this paper is not meant to be a final study but rather will be a primer on what, how and why, and to be a starting point for dialogues about innovative learning experiences and opportunities for museum education.
Bibliography (in process)
Abowitz, K. K. (2000). Democratic communities and Business/Education “partnerships” in secondary education. Urban Review, 32(4), 313-41.
Blake, P., & Pfeifer, S. (1993). School-business partnerships: A win-win proposition. NASSP Bulletin, 77(554), 28-32.
Bluemink, J., Hamalainen, R., Manninen, T., & Jarvela, S. (2010). Group-level analysis on multiplayer game collaboration: How do the individuals shape the group interaction? Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 365-383.
Boot, Richard and Evans, Judith. (1990). Partnership in education and change. Management Learning, 21, 13. doi:DOI: 10.1177/135050769002100102
Boyd, B. (2009). On the origin of stories
Brand, S. (1999). The clock of the long now.
Buzzeo, T. (2008). Make the move from collaboration to data-driven collaboration. Library Media Connection, 27(3), 28-31.
Catmull, E. (2008). How pixar fosters collective creativity – taking full advantage of the diverse talents in an organization has got to be one of the toughest management challenges there is. pixar has succeeded more than most. here’s how. Harvard Business Review., , 64.
Chapple, K., & Jackson, S. (2010). Commentary: Arts, neighborhoods, and social practices: Towards an integrated epistemology of community arts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, April(29), 478. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0739456X10363802
Conoley, J. C., & Conoley, C. W. (2010). Why does collaboration work? linking positive psychology and collaboration. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 75-82.
Cumo, J. (2011). Museums Matter
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience
Din, H. & Hecht, P. (2007). The Digital Museum
Dow, E. H. (2008). Successful inter-institutional resource sharing in a niche educational market: Formal collaboration without a contract. Innovative Higher Education, 33(3), 169-179.
Feldman, S., & Gonick, L. (2005). THE DREAM OF ONECLEVELAND A new ultrabroadband network could transform the library’s educational role. LIBRARY JOURNAL -NEW YORK-, 130(14), 34-36.
Garber, E. (2004). MOO: Using a computer gaming environment to teach about community arts. Art Education, 57(4), 40-47.
Garder, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed
Klein, J. T. (1998). The discourse of interdisciplinarity: Perspectives from the “handbook of the undergraduate curriculum.”. Liberal Education, 84(3), 4-11.
Korom, F. J. (1999). Empowerment through representation and collaboration in museum exhibitions. Journal of Folklore Research, 36(3), 259-265.
Lasley, T. J., & Others, A. (1992). Collaborative and noncollaborative partnership structures in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 257-61.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation
Lester, J. N., & Evans, K. R. (2009). Instructors’ experiences of collaboratively teaching: Building something bigger. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 373-382.
Longoria, T., Jr. (1999). The distribution of public-private partnerships: Targeting of voluntary efforts to improve urban education. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 315-29.
Masters, K. (2011). A brief guide to understanding MOOCs. The Internet Journal of Medical Education, 1(2) .
McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: The Penguin Press.
Miller, P. M., & Hafner, M. M. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A critical examination of a university-school-community partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66-110. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.lib.pepperdine.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ783230&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site; http://dx.doi.org.lib.pepperdine.edu/10.1177/0013161X07309469
Muir, G. M., & van, d. L. (2009). Students teaching students: An experiential learning opportunity for large introductory psychology classes in collaboration with local elementary schools. Teaching of Psychology, 36(3), 169-173.
Northrup, P., Lee, R., & Burgess, V. (2002). Learner perceptions of online interaction
Ogden, S. (2007). Understanding, respect, and collaboration in cultural heritage preservation: A conservator’s developing perspective. LIBRARY TRENDS, 56(1), 275-287.
Papert, S. () The children’s machine
Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 498-505.
Peskin, J., Katz, S., & Lazare, G. (2009). Curriculum, coherence, and collaboration: Building a professional learning community among instructors in initial teacher education. Teaching Educational Psychology, 5(2), 23-38.
Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: Digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27(8-9), 597-623.
Schank, R. (1991). The connoisseur’s guide to the mind
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849-873.
Shih, J., Shih, B., Shih, C., Su, H., & Chuang, C. (2010). The influence of collaboration styles to children’s cognitive performance in digital problem-solving game “william adventure”: A comparative case study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 982-993.
Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation & Gaming, 31(4), 528-35.
Spiegelman, M., & Glass, R. (2009). Games and web 2.0: A winning combination for millennials. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), 273-289.
Steinbach, L. (2001). A collaborative model for lifelong learning and the arts using broadband multicasting. CULTURAL HERITAGE and TECHNOLOGIES in the THIRD MILLENNIUM, , 107.
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. (2008) Wikinomics
Trant, J. (2009). Emerging convergence? thoughts on museums, archives, libraries, and professional training. MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP, 24(4), 369-387.
Trant, J., & with the participants in the steve.museum project. (2006). Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 12(1), 83-105.
Trim, P. R. J. (1999). Partnership between institutions of further and higher education: A grounded theory. Management in Education, 13(1), 11-13.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World Class Learners
Zimpher, Nancy L. and Howey, Kenneth R. (2005). The politics of partnerships for teacher education redesign and school renewal. Journal of Teacher Education, (56), 266. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0022487105275922
To be listed