Google Removes Ads from Apps for Education

More than 30 million students, teachers and administrators globally rely on Google Apps for Education. About 40 percent of nonprofit colleges use Google for institutional email. Under pressure from privacy advocates, Google announced that it had permanently removed all ads from its Apps for Education. That includes the Gmail service. That means that the company can no longer harvest students’ information for advertising purposes.

Google had previously given college administrators the option of allowing the company to scan student Gmail accounts for key words and to deliver targeted advertisements to those students. Apparently, few administrators opted to allow the ads so many users won’t actually see a change.

Google said that Gmail collects data on all incoming and outgoing messages for several reasons. The practice allows the company to identify certain messages as spam, and makes it possible for users to unearth old emails with key-word searches. Scanning for potential advertising key words was part of that larger process, but the company has isolated and eliminated that part of the scanning process for Google Apps clients.

In California, two college students joined a recent attempt to bring a class-action lawsuit against Google for violating state and federal privacy laws in its data-collection techniques, according to Education Week. There has been discussion about whether Google’s data collection might violate Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 

There Is Open and Then There Is Closed

open closed

Going back all the way to the early days of MOOCs (less than a decade, of course), the Open part of Massive Open Online Courses was a very important part of the equation. OPEN meant a number of things, including:

Access - open to all, regardless of age, location or previous experience and education

Free - without cost

Open Tools - using free and open tools like Moodle, blogs etc.

Reuse – the right to reuse the content in its unaltered / verbatim form

Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself

Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other content to create something new

Redistribute – the right to make and share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others

That is not true for many of the big MOOC providers. Another blow against the Open Everything Empire comes with the announcement that Udacity will no longer give learners the opportunity to earn free, “non-identity-verified” certificates. People will still be able to view Udacity’s online course materials without paying, but those who want a credential will have to pay. Udacity feels their courses are worth something and plans to charge students accordingly. Udacity had earlier pulled back on believing that MOOCs are best-suited for academic pursuits and better applied to traing and lifelong learning. That is what many universities consider to be "non-credit" courses.

How long before the courses are not even open to those who aren't willing to pay to learn?

The big MOOC providers already tend not to use open source platforms and most don't allow the courses to be remixed, reused or redistributed.

The openness is eroding.



Quest-Based Learning

Perceval and the quest for the Grail

Quest-based learning (QBL) is an instructional theory that uses elements of game design and learning communities to support student choice while still operating within the context of a standards-based curriculum.

Many educators and many schools at all levels are uncomfortable moving away from a top-down approach to information acquisition. So, QBL may bee seen as moving out of many comfort zones.

Some game-based feedback tools - not games - like experience points, progress bars, badges, and achievements are motivating and meaningful to students.

Rather than design courses via textbook learning and lectures, QBL classes require students to select quests and progress at their own pace through a series of educational activities. This may remind educators of project-based learning or problem-based learning, but the unique element is the self-selection part of the design.

Quests are often online learning activities that address the core of the subject matter. These might be an audio podcast, a short video or collaborating online with classmates in discussion or composing.

For me, the most important thing is not putting the quest-based learning label on the pedagogy, but the inclusion of the QBL elements in course design.

In a white paper by Chris Haskell (Boise State University), he explains that QBL lesson design "focuses on an individualized and flexible curricular experience. In QBL, students can select activities, called quests, rather than assignments in a fixed linear order. Students leverage choice to promote engagement rather than waiting for a due date.”

Hands might be raised immediately to question how autonomy over what and when to learn would have any effect on academic achievement. Haskell and a colleague implemented an experimental QBL curriculum with pre-service teacher candidates in 2010 and they found “93% of students using this approach reached the winning condition, described as receiving a course grade of ‘A’ . . . the average completion time was reduced from 16 weeks to 12 ½ weeks with one student completing [the course] in just four.”

It's interesting that this experiment started in higher ed and is being moved down to K-12, since much innovation in teaching and pedagogy moves up from the lower grade levels.

Will this quest lead to a holy grail for teaching? No. There is no grail. It's all in the journey.



This post also appears at Ronkowitz LLC





Competency, Prior and Lifelong Learning and Letting Go

My thoughts today were triggered by listening to an interview on “life-long learning” (LLL) with Marc Singer of Thomas Edison State College (TESC) in New Jersey. (read/listen at

TESC is a "virtual" college and one of the first schools in the country designed specifically for adult learners. TESC offers degree programs and certificates in more than 100 areas of study. The interview focuses on the Associate in Science in Business Administration (ASBA) degree.

The school partners with Saylor Academy and allows students to take free online courses from Saylor and submit their work for credit evaluation by TESC. This results in a fully-online degree for about $5,000 for fees to the college.

I have written before about how competency-based degrees and credits require a rethinking of the credit hour model that higher ed has used for a very long time. This is also true for assessing prior learning and learning from other sources (including MOOCs) because the answer is not to just look at how long you spend in a classroom or online, but on showing what you learned. 

Singer is vice provost of the Center for the Assessment of Learning at TESC. The degree they are offering comes after students take a selection of pre-selected MOOCs and then having their knowledge assessed by TESC. This was a big topic for MOOCs a few years ago, but has been somewhat lost in the the boom (and bust?) of MOOC hype the past year.

">One issue that slowed that acceptance nationally was the lack of alignment between the content of what’s in a MOOC and the college curriculum. As the American Council of Education and the National College Credit Recommendation Service connect with and review the their processes for developing these online courses, acceptance increases. But the assessment and verification of student identity and competencies still usually if left to the crediting institution.

What is not new is the idea of prior learning assessment - sometimes called "experiential learning." There is some adaptation needed here, as assessing learning from a MOOC is not "prior" learning, but it is learning from another source being evaluated by an outside party.

Something that I don't feel should be the number one factor in using and accepting MOOCs is a financial model. But it is high on the list for many colleges. Marc Singer says in the interview: "The first thing people perceive is [granting credit for prior learning is] costing us money. That was an important obstacle for us to address. As it turns out, that’s not the case; I think that particularly as a state institution, where our state (New Jersey) subsidizes some of what we do, we’re not really losing money from this in the way people would expect. I’d also point people through the studies that have been done of students who come to a college, any college, whose credits they’ve acquired through prior learning. Those students tend to be more motivated, more focused on their goals, more self-directed. Because of that, we’ve seen measurable differences in the number of credits they take at an institution like this — they actually take more credits in college, not fewer, because they’re more invested in the process and we’ve validated what they’re bringing to us from outside. Not only that [but] their rates of completion … are much higher than students who don’t bring anything from the outside."

Something else that is not a new issue is the inability of most schools and most faculty in higher ed to move away from the idea that learning is not valid unless they are the source and facilitators that give the content to students.

Google Plus (and minus)

“If content is king, then context is god.” - Gary Vaynerchuk

Google+ is an amazing social media site that allows users to share photos, play games, listen to music and engage in chat.


Google+ is another failed social experiment by Google.

You will get both sides if you talk to users and non-users.

The number of Google+ users continues to grow, if for no other reason than it is tied to all the other Google tools (Gmail, Docs, Search etc.). It surprises people when they learn that YouTube is the second-largest "search engine."  Many Google account holders are on Plus and don't even know it.

If you believe the prognosticators, like Forrester Research, then Google is in a better position than Facebook to bring marketers the “database of affinity.” I hear more frequently that Google+ is a good marketing tool for businesses.  That database of affinity is their ability to collect our interests and preferences and gain insight into each of us as users.

Not that Facebook and others are not trying to gather the kind of big social data that brands want.

Both networks roll out new features like local listings, Google hangouts and verified content.

Google+ has more than 100 million active users and still continues to grow. Facebook has almost 800 million users.

Both are making a play at business. They are in this area to make money. Google+ Communities is a way to tap into prospects and put your business in Google Places for Business. 

What about education? Google Hangouts are a very good way to interact with students, especially if your school uses Gmail and Google apps. Google Circles provide a way to organize classes and groups. How about free HD video broadcasting through Hangouts on Air?

Ripples is another newly introduced  Google+ feature that creates an interactive graphic of the public shares of any public post or URL on Google+ to show you how it has "rippled" through the network.

Education needs to look at how business uses Google+ and decide of there are educational application.  If a business integrates Google Maps with their Google+ profile, it can help them connect with local customers and provide guidance to their location. Does that help with the marketing of a school?

Right now, Google+ does not have the user frequency that other social media sites have, but its too big to be ignored and probably "too big to fail." It is time for schools to define their Google+ strategy.