forgive me Matt...speechless...but very big ...oh... and another one too
I've read quite a few poorly researched articles and blog posts on MOOCs through Link-spam on my LinkedIn account. People talk about "Jumping on the MOOC bandwagon" when they are "jumping on the MOOC critique" bandwagon.
In general I do feel that George and Stephen (and about a dozen others) have been glossed over in some accounts of the MOOC landscape and genesis. Sometimes I think this is deliberate for reasons to simplify the account. Other times, to make a point and enlargen the (supposed) influence/impact of a particular project. Other times it is politics and money, and "How could some people on the fringe of the establishment make such big inroads in this new thing?".
I wonder what's next on this topic from Stephen?
I'm reminded of a workshop with Etienne Wenger a number of years back. The topic was Communities of Practice. One serious question was "We have set up these communities of Practice for people, and almost straight away they diverge from our Ministry (of Education) objectives"
It's his kind of perspective hat led to the cMOOC and xMOOC categorisations came from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course#Precursors)
It will be very interesting to see where this goes to.
I hear you. Am giggling here because Mooc and being bullish kind of fits my bill! That is why I think Matt grasped something interesting in that pic. I am going to read around this, because Wenger- well I know that work...am scratching my head now-off to read up about your thoughts, I want to know more-will get back to you soon.
The original MOOCs are still up for all the world to see: http://change.mooc.ca/ I joined the Connectivism and Connected Knowledge MOOC in 2011 (CCK11, the first was CCK08) and I had very positive and valuable learning experiences because of it.
The MOOCs I've seen on EdX, Coursera, etc. (xMOOCs) are very different, more like the old 90s "vending machine" model of elearning, with some discussion forums thrown in as a nod to Social Constructivism. I think part of the problem stems from many in the IT world who have bought into the idea of self-organising systems and that courses can somehow run themselves with little or no intervention from educators. I doubt that any of the proponents of platforms like EdX and Coursera are particularly well versed with developmental psychology, or perhaps I'm missing something.
Maybe this is a limitation of some implementations of Communities of Practice too?
Shall be beavering away for a day or two with this
Derek and Matt, hi
Have read one of Steven Downes' latest papers on learning and MOOCs; lots of interesting issues in the paper, but I noted an equally interesting gap: What do students expect and what do practitioners think students expect. An example might be...let's get 'Rock star' lecturers to share their expert knowledge.
A few thoughts then:
1. What kind of practitioner training/pedagogical development would be suitable for teaching and learning during MOOCs?
2. I really could be wrong with this, but it appears to me that learner analytics data inform design, in part, based on what students can't do/don't know-due to the nature of the whole notion of LA? Is this really effective?
3. Wenger, supports ethnography; a stance for research about communities of practice, which includes being immersed in practice to develop social learning theory about learning capability/application/engagement & development within spaces-within CoP-within human systems (e.g. education systems). He emphasises a focus on practitioner as 'social artist' as well as the practitioner as expert knower (the education 'Rock Star').
4. So, 1+2+3=MOOC quality considerations...I mean we all want well trained surgeons to operate on us eh...why on earth would we expect anything less in terms of our engagement with education?
Paper in the pipeline both-perhaps?
Dawn, smiling here, often conversations here wander around in the shallows, everyone is just so busy, i takes time to engage deeply.
Which paper in particular did you read?
Tis called 'Learning and the Massive Open Online Course: Notes from ELI Online Spring Focus Session' Stephen Downes (April 3-4 2013) (on www.downes.ca/me/articles.htm)
Sorry, I can't upoload it here-did try but too large a doc.
I came across this article by Richard Landers which I think raises some important questions about the claims made by many of the mainstream proponents of MOOCs: If You Believe in MOOCs, You Are Assuming Too Much http://neoacademic.com/2013/01/23/if-you-believe-in-moocs-you-are-assuming-too-much/
Re: research questions, since we're at the exploratory stage, I think it'd make sense to go for ethnography, case studies, and other qualitative data gathering. Currently, the xMOOCs appear to be gathering "metrics" (analytics data); aggregated data across diverse samples of learners. I'm not sure what we could learn from that but you could manipulate it to say just about anything you want, and out of groups of tens of thousands at a time, you can find all kinds of patterns that look significant but turn out to be anomalies (just by sheer coincidence). On a lighter note, XKCD has an interesting view of analytics: http://xkcd.com/1138/
Also, most MOOCs are short courses, what happens over longer periods of time?
hopefully-you will have received those initial ideas. Next, I will set up a Google Doc and send that link...sometime this week. All can dip in and out of that-whenever suits.
Do drop me a line on email if any probs.