(This is a part of a series on the differences and similarities between formal and informal adult learning.)

Traditional university courses have a syllabus. They are set at the beginning of the course (without any input from students, in my experience) and don’t change.

While all the courses in the P2PU School of Ed pilot have a syllabus, that is not the case with all P2PU courses. Some courses may start out with a syllabus. Other groups may choose to develop a syllabus together as a group. Others may feel that having a syllabus is antithetical to their learning process. This could pose challenges to certifying a syllabus for credit in advance.

Even in the School of Ed, we encourage participants to customize the syllabus for their own needs and classroom situations. If an activity isn’t valuable, don’t do it. Instead, suggest one that meets your objectives. That’s what self-directed learning is all about. Yet that does pose issues for a traditional credit issuing process.

A couple years back, I was involved in an open, online course in which midstream in the course, there was something of a revolt. The participants were highly engaged in the studies, so much so that they felt they needed more time to reflect, write, discuss, and play with the ideas being covered. However, the course load and pace didn’t allow that. So midway the course syllabus was significantly altered — by the students.

In my opinion, this is an exceptional example of how education should work. If there were more of this kind of learner self-direction in traditional PD and especially in K-12 classrooms, more and deeper learning would take place.

How do traditional institutions cope with this? At a university, it may be acceptable from a well-respected, tenured professor, but less so from a newer instructor. In district PD, it would not likely be accommodated. In K-12, it is the kind of thing largely frowned upon in this era of pacing and standardization. To me, this is a huge failing. It is definitely not a trap we are willing to fall into at the School of Ed.

So customize away! We’ll leave the lights on.

(This is a part of a series on the differences and similarities between formal and informal adult learning.)

Before continuing, I should say just a bit about the School of Ed at P2PU and how it is different from other parts of P2PU.

First, the School of Ed is a pilot, and as such, we have some fairly unique characteristics, both when compared with traditional professional development (PD) and from the rest of P2PU.

The School of Ed differs from traditional professional development in many ways. All participation is voluntary, and there is no charge to participants. However, participants are asked to make some commitments in terms of directing their own learning, actively collaborating with the group, and working together on hands on projects. We encourage each participant to customize the course for their own needs. The focus of the School of Ed is on doing (writing, creating, reflecting, etc.), not just passively reading, listening, or viewing.

The School of Ed differs from other parts of P2PU as well. It is generally more structured than most P2PU courses. We have a somewhat common approach, format, syllabuses, etc. Other P2PU courses span a huge continuum from more structured “courses” to highly unstructured “study groups.” The School of Ed has highly-qualified experts developing our courses. In general, anyone can develop a P2PU course, so organizers may be highly-qualified experts or not.

In starting the School of Ed, we talked a lot (and continue to talk) about how traditional or not our approach should be. There are certain foundations we are committed to — peer learning, individualization, openness, community, and deeper learning. However, there are also certain more traditional things we are doing to make these courses “fit” into the existing K-12 system. Awarding credit (and even assessing participation) might be one of these.

It’s a fine line we’re walking, and we’re constantly refining.

Now on with today’s post…

—-

Instructors at a university, even for online courses being given for CEUs, undergo a rigorous vetting process. Sometimes there is an “instructor of record” process by which a proxy instructor is used for certification purposes. Absent that, instructors typically must have at least a masters in the field being taught and must complete a fairly lengthy application process. For the School of Ed pilot, this doesn’t pose much of a barrier, because we have assembled a very special group of highly qualified experts, a true dream team.

However, this is certainly not the norm. In fact, P2PU prides itself on the fact that anyone can put together and/or facilitate a course. In fact, open communities like P2PU are able to scale because of their ability to attract volunteers. Some of the volunteers are experts in their fields;  others are great facilitators but may lack more formal qualifications.

In addition, it wouldn’t make logistical sense to try to put facilitators through a lengthy application process. Courses are constantly being created and run, and there is a stream of new facilitators joining us all the time. In fact, at the School of Ed, we hope that some of the participants in our first courses will go on to facilitate future iterations of these courses or even create their own new courses.

Powered by high-quality content (all P2PU content is also open licensed for sharing), self-directed learners organized in peer teams may drive the learning process more so than an instructor. What then is the role of a facilitator? Certainly, it is not the same as that of a traditional instructor.

To me, the roles of course developers and course facilitators are very different (although at P2PU, they are often one and the same). Given an expertly designed, high quality course, some of the roles of the facilitator are:

• To encourage participants to set their own goals and to customize the planned activities (or design their own) accordingly
• To answer questions, provide support, and recommend additional resources for participants
• To moderate synchronous sessions if applicable
• To encourage participants to collaborate with each other (peer learning) and to take on leadership roles as appropriate

And now considering the possibility of offering credit, a new role:

• To certify participant learning mastery

Stay tuned for a future post on assessment and grading!

This is the first in a series of posts about the differences and similarities of formal adult learning, especially through institutions of higher ed and ones that issue some kind of formal credit, and informal DIY adult learning.

P2PU is all about informal learning. The new School of Ed pilot at P2PU is to give K-12 teachers a chance to engage in professional development that not only covers innovative approaches to learning but also models collaborative approaches that we hope teachers will take back to their own classrooms.

Historically, much professional development (PD) is mandated by districts. Teachers are told what, how, and when they will learn. There is little differentiation. Courses at the P2PU School of Ed are all voluntary and free of charge. Participating teachers choose what courses they want to take and even what types of projects and activities they will pursue to accomplish their own objectives. It is differentiated and self-directed.

In order to renew their teaching credential and to advance on the salary scale, teachers must earn professional development credit, the requirements of which vary state by state. In some states, this is tied to continuing education units (CEUs), typically issued by a university. In others, it is clock hours, often issued by an intermediate unit. A few are experimenting with more innovative models.

Obviously it would behoove participants in P2PU, both in the School of Ed and in other areas, to be able to earn this type of credit for their participation and achievements in courses.

It is with that goal that we recently began discussions to seek CEU credits for School of Ed courses through a prestigious traditional university.

In beginning this process, the chasm between the traditional and new peer-driven models was immediately evident. Here are just a few of the questions that arose. (I’ll be writing more about each of these in the days to come.)

• How do you certify the course facilitators? What exactly is a “facilitator”, and what is his/her role in peer learning?
• What is the syllabus for each course? What happens if that syllabus is fluid and flexible for the class as a whole as well as for individuals?
• How do you measure students’ time on task in the course, as well as their concrete outcomes?
• How are learners formally assessed and what is the grading policy (if any)?
• Does the normal timeframe for going through this certification process work for a learning environment founded on rapid development and constant iteration?

In discussion these questions, I could really understand and empathize with both perspectives. (I am often accused of being more “traditional” than my avant guard peers. :)

These questions are more will be the basis of other posts in this series. Hope you enjoy reading and join in the discussion!

The P2PU School of Ed (pilot) — formerly, briefly known as PD on P2PU — is now up!

This school is about hands-on learning driven by each educator’s particular needs and classroom situations. It’s about connecting, collaborating, and creating, not just reading or studying.

Course descriptions are available for all seven courses:

• Differentiating Instruction - description, sign-up (to be open soon)
• Student Engagement - description, sign-up (to be open soon)
• OER in the K-12 Classroom - description, sign-up (to be open soon)
• Teaching in Online and Blended Classrooms - description, sign-up (to be open soon)
• Multimedia and Graphics to Facilitate Deeper Learning - description, sign-up (to be open soon)
• Writing & Common Core: Deeper Learning for All - description, sign-up (to be open soon)
• Using Web 2.0 and Social Media to Encourage Deeper Learning - description, sign-up (to be open soon)

We’ll be opening for registration soon (before the end of the month) so stay tuned!

The course list for the fall pilot of PD on P2PU is finalized:

• Differentiating Instruction
• Student Engagement and Checking for Understanding
• OER in the K-12 Classroom
• Using Web 2.0 and Social Media to Encourage Deeper Learning
• Teaching in Online and Blended Classrooms
• Multimedia and Graphics to Facilitate Deeper Learning
• Writing & Common Core: Deeper Learning for All

We have some great partners developing and facilitating these classes, and we can’t wait to get started!

Stay tuned for info on registering for these free, open, online PD courses.

I have written previously about how much I like P2PU and its model for peer learning.

Working with the community on this site and constantly thinking about how we in the K-12 community could better model peer- and inquiry-driven learning has led me to brainstorm how P2PU could be used for K-12 professional development.

I am now happy to announce a pilot project to develop a few courses on P2PU for K-12 educators.

This will include several courses to be run in the fall. Each will be approximately 6 weeks long and will emphasize community, peer learning, openness, and specific hands-on projects to be designed by each participant. The focus will be on authentic tasks and peer collaboration, rather than on extensive content. Topics will include differentiating instruction, using open educational resources, teaching in an online or blended classroom, and others.

Collaborating on these courses will be K12 Handhelds (my company and the organization behind K12 Open Ed), the Education Development Center (EDC), and Peer to Peer University (P2PU). This pilot is being funded with the help of the Hewlett Foundation.

All courses will be free, open-licensed (CC BY), and online.

If you are interested in participating in one of these courses, stay tuned for more information. You can also email me if you like.

I’m excited about looking at this new model for PD, and, of course, I’ll be writing and reflecting all about it here.

I’ve been thinking a lot about different structures for adult online learning as the result of a couple projects I’m working on right now, including P2PU. My thoughts are along the lines of increasing participant options in their learning.

There is a fairly universal fall-off or drop-out rate after about 3 weeks in most online classes. One possible solution to this is to create a series of much smaller modules (say, 2-3 weeks long) and a flexible entry schedule. In its extreme, this could result in a structure of a half dozen 2-3 week long modules which could be started whenever by anyone who wanted to participate and completed on whatever schedule works for each learner. The modules could be taken individually or in sequence (or out of sequence for that matter). It’s also been suggested to me that in this format, an almost unlimited number of participants could be accommodated.

This kind of structure is being thought about over at P2PU, and I have thought about it for my “Entrepreneurial Marketing” course (with encouragement by some of the participants).

Some challenges for this model include:

1. A compromise of the instructional design when there are pre-requisites or content is best covered in a certain sequence
2. Lack of participant motivation to finish even a 2-3 week long module if there is no “finish” date
3. The facilitator role

I am thinking right now in particular about #3. In most online courses, a strong facilitator role in guiding and encouraging learning is a given. At P2PU, this seems less so, perhaps both because of the peer focus and because of the fact that all the facilitators are volunteers.

In my own P2PU course, I originally worried that I might take too strong of a facilitation role because of my own experience as a more traditional teacher. However, having been through the course now and listening to other facilitators and participants discuss P2PU and various classes, I think that a strong facilitator that provides solid guidance and a strong presence throughout the course is important. They don’t necessarily have to “teach” but rather act as a coach and mentor.

With a series of modules that have a rolling cast of participants though, I think this would be almost impossible. Relationships would be very difficult to form.

And as a facilitator, you’d virtually have to monitor the progress of each participant in each module individually. (In my course, this would be something like 6 modules x 3 weeks each x 40+ participants….probably a lot more with a rolling enrollment.) I’m not sure this would be feasible with a paid teaching job; it is unthinkable as a volunteer (unless of course you have a whole lot of time on your hands and don’t need to earn a living — neither of which apply to me :).

Which then takes you to the place of stepping back as a facilitator…making it more of a “virtual book club” as P2PU suggests, with participants hopefully self-forming into groups and some taking on a facilitator role independently.

While that sounds appealing, my own experience in trying to foster this kind of self-managing learning group atmosphere has not been successful. You end up with a few highly self-motivated and well-organized people learning a lot, but frankly those people could have organized their own learning from a variety of sources; they don’t need a P2PU course.

I’d be interested to know if others have experience in how this can work.

Otherwise, I’m thinking about some kind of hybrid….perhaps modular, but with a limited cadre size, fixed start and end dates for each module, and a continuing facilitator role. Still thinking though….