How would MOOCs be designed and structured differently?

Thanks to Doug Holton for opinion The case for learning designers.

What should be the role of instructors in learning design in MOOCs?  How should MOOCs be designed and delivered?

My early learning experience with CCK08 and subsequent learning experiences with CCKs and Change11 was that over-design of a course would not be able to cater for the needs of massive number of participants.  Successful MOOCs (cMOOCs) need to factor emergence (emergent knowledge and learning) in the design and delivery of the “course” and “event”.  It is based on a continuous feedback loop with distributed learning networks, just in time learning- with participants’ active contribution of content, and co-design of the conversation and engagement of instructors, facilitators and clusters of self-organised participants.

Image on Comment Ecosystem: From CCKs course postings.

Most xMOOCs are not built with that in mind, and so those courses are highly structured, often planned in a linear fashion, and thus only afford the prescriptive knowledge to be consumed by the participants, governed by the video lectures, some quizzes, and posted readings.

I reckon learning designers have often pre-conceived with a one size “suits” all sort of tool box online learning with learning object, that may be highly suitable for closed LMS with specific learning outcomes sort of courses.  Would such a design meet the needs of huge cohorts of learners?  I reckon a certain level of customization is needed as participants are coming from a diverse background.

Despite the large number of successful completion (though a relatively 5 – 15% completion rate) in the xMOOCs, I still think the original course design and pedagogy would impact on the course delivery and completion.

Would this explain why more than 80% participants are not completing the course, as they don’t see much need for their contribution or engagement in the course?  Even if they want to do so, there is simply no means for them to be involved except by joining the study group or posting on the discussion boards, where their voices would seldom be heard as these postings would only attract attention if they are voted up (for attention to be given).  Besides, as revealed in the various studies about xMOOCs, many of the participants (could be as much as 40-50%) are degree holders.  This may imply that many of the participants would be following their own set learning goals, learning pathway, and methodologies in their learning, rather than the “linear” progressive Mastery Learning.

Indeed, I have tried watching some of the videos of the xMOOCs and have often skipped the various portions of the videos where I don’t find relevance to my needs or learning.  I would also be browsing through, pausing, or rewinding certain parts of the video when I am just interested in certain part of the section for my learning.  This is similar to the learning via Youtube educational videos, or the TED talks.   Wouldn’t it be true that many participants of xMOOCs would likely do the same, in order to optimize and customize their own education and learning in a MOOC?

Would some of these participants be designing their own learning pathway (i.e. within MOOC) sub-consciously throughout their MOOC engagement?

It is interesting to note that the DS106 and the EDUMOOCs (an xMOOC) are structured as Connectivist and Cognitivist/Connectivist courses (as perceived by this participant), and analysed here.  As I have shared in the past posts, it appears more xMOOCs would be designed with some of the social constructivist and connectivist principles, even though they are conceptually designed with a linear learning pathway with structured content.

Why?  Massive participants have a diverse experience, skills level and background, and thus they would seldom participate with the same entry or exit points, except for the assessment or examination.

Isn’t it time for the MOOC providers to review the learning design so as to ensure the course is built on a flexible emergent design, rather than a rigid, one size suits all online course principle?   Otherwise, there would be a “constant” drop-out or low completion rate, as participants don’t feel their involvement or engagement in the learning community and course design, especially in the xMOOCs.  There are also power and autonomy factors, which would continue to influence the way participants would engage or not engage in the course, especially when participants don’t find any power or autonomy over their learning over the course.

Is Connectivism a New Learning Theory – Part 2

Here is my response to George and others’ comments to my previous post of Is Connectivism a New Learning Theory?

Hi George, Agreed that the theory has to work at an individual level, and it would have to explain and predict how your learning could or do occur. My questions to you include: How do you learn? How has learning occurred to you?

Do you learn through building and or navigation of networks (aggregation, curation of information sources), personal level (neuronal-level connections, thinking and reflection of personal experience (what sort of changes in behavior?), and way of thinking with conceptual connections of various concepts based on those experiences (sense-making)?

In this way Connectivism is based on a thesis that learning is a networking phenomenon and that knowledge is where one could sense and recognise the pattern emerging out of the building and navigation of the networks. Learning is then a dynamic process, with certain adaptive properties associated with the networks, which could happen under a Complex Adaptive System and Knowledge Ecology (Chatti, 2012) (such as a MOOC). This means that when information changes, a person would need to examine the knowledge pattern resulting from those changes. The MOOC movement and the implications are good example illustrating such knowledge pattern. No one single expert (of MOOCs) so far has fully been able to definitely explain the knowledge and learning that are embedded in MOOCs for both the networks and individuals.

However, when individual professors and all associated learners are co-evolving and co-learning with the learners, each would sense the learning emerging out of the interactions or engagement, with some perceiving knowledge and learning with different degrees of meaning – based on sense-making.

Professors and learners (some, if not all) would each define their way-finding (goal setting, learning how to explore their own pathways) resulting from those exploration, connections, engagement or interaction. These sort of learning also result in various interpretations of what constitutes self-determined learning, self-organising learning (both individually and networks and groups) and emergent knowledge and learning, apart from prescriptive knowledge and learning.

There are people who may learn and interact differently from those as defined under the “formalised” and theorised learning approaches, based on legitimate peripheral learning (as peripheral learners) or other reasons (<a href=”http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/MOOCsPromisePeril_Anderson.pdf&#8221; rel=”nofollow”>Anderson, 2013</a>).

Such patterns of both individual and social learning are appearing in various forms throughout the cMOOCs in repeated ways, and also re-emerging in xMOOCs despite the “assertion” that the pedagogy is based on Mastery Learning. Indeed, you could associate the learning associated with Connectivism to be an integration of the previous learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and situated learning (and COPs) all based on connections and interactivity (Connectivism).

May I relate to my previous post:”How would a connectivist approach work? Yes, you still require the deconstruction of the student’s existing thinking, but not just based on the teacher’s input. Rather, you would suggest the students to be immersed in networks, based on navigating activities and the using of appropriate tools or media (i.e. media and technology affordance), in exploring about the “right” and “wrong” concepts, and discerning those right from wrong through navigation tools and reflective thinking. This is similar to what I have suggested here:

The concepts that are crystallised through such networked learning may be based on the ability of the learner to recognise and interpret the pattern (i.e. principally on the navigation and exploration, with or without the teachers), rather than the demonstration of the teacher and explanation of the concepts via “Constructivism or Social Constructivism”. This means that the concept development under Connectivism is far more reaching than the typical “classroom” or social networks environment, but would also include technological and media enhancement for its nourishment.”

There are lots of factors which could impact or influence a person’s learning under such a knowledge ecology (MOOCs), including the authority and power exerted through formal authority, professors, peers etc. and the emotional and affective dimensions (likes/dislikes of certain aspects) emerging from the interaction with course, professors, experts, networks, peers, preference of learning based on individual learning styles, autonomy and self-determination or organisation of individuals, and most importantly personal educational and learning experience which would ultimately impact on one’s perception and appreciation or adoption of those properties of networks – openness, diversity, autonomy, and connectivity or interactivity.

Thanks again for your valuable comments and insights.

References:
Anderson, T. (2013). Promise and/or Peril: MOOCs and Open and Distance Education (accessed 3/5/2013)

Chatti, M. (2012). The LaaN Theory

My learning reflection

Is it time to let go, on MOOC? I am now more like a philosopher (I consider myself a thinker, hopefully a philosopher) of MOOCs. I think I am a post-MOOCer, just like the Post-modernist, where I no longer go inside the box to search for the truths or knowledge. MOOC becomes the past of me, as new and emergent wave comes along where I just surf through, and to be a “being” to explore the Future of education. I found interest in Creative Classroom & Creatagogy (my latest post). Any thoughts?

Thanks Mary Rearick for adding a delightful insight, and yes, the reciprocity and empathic understanding for others deepens our learning connectively and collectively. I have often immersed in MOOCs and so have experienced c and x MOOCs in various degrees. Often, I found myself so ingrained with all the learning that I realize it is quite a challenge to shift the frame of reference, when looking into education from a different set of angles. As I shared in various posts, I had learnt and experienced Mastery Learning (in teacher training back in 80s) and had been adopting that for decades, and so now xMOOCs are using it as the main pedagogy. I wonder if most professors living with the xMOOCers are looking for going beyond that, as they are expected to “live” by and comply with such pedagogy, as it is also one of the expectations of the MOOCs providers. Obviously, there are more advantages than disadvantages when it comes to mastery learning, as it is also part of the apprenticeship models (from worker trainees to PhDs).

The theory behind MOOCs is a simple one: Wouldn’t it be great if every student had access to the best college professors and college courses? And what if those ideas were accessible 24×7, from anywhere in the world?

MOOC would change education forever, as the author of the post believes.

In many ways, these developments have the potential to invigorate higher education by compelling traditional colleges and universities to become more accessible, committed to graduates’ success and more distinctive and diverse.

Isn’t it interesting if the xMOOCs are focused mainly on the part of:

every student had access to the best college professors and college courses? And what if those ideas were accessible 24×7, from anywhere in the world

How about the students accessing to knowledgeable others, OERs, social and learning networks, accreditation and qualifications of institutions for (free or fees)?

The cMOOCs however, is based on a different model, though you could still make use of some of the concepts of Mastery Learning. cMOOCs do not rely solely on the “linear” learning approach of Mastery Learning, though it is assumed that one must have certain pre-requisites (knowledge and skills) in order to learn effectively. Instead of merely relying on a behavioral/cognitivist/instructivist model of education in traditional closed walls or open walls MOOCs, it could be beneficial to place the educators and learners in a co-evolving environment like fully open MOOCs to experience the networked learning model of learning (not just education). That is surely challenging the traditional notion of teacher giving out didactic instructions, where learners follow and repeat the action. See my post Creative Classroom on what I mean by such shift in the learning paradigm.

Learning in MOOC (both c and x MOOC) could happen in various spaces, and with the mediation of tools, it could include more diverse clusters (or even population) of educators and learners. It is no longer just about super professors teaching the course (or xMOOCs). It should go beyond that didactic teaching based on short videos lectures. It is more about deep learning based on conversation, dialogues, collective inquiry, collaboration and cooperation in networks, through various joint projects – wikis, Google doc, blog posts, tweets in various platforms etc.. I just don’t see these sorts of pedagogy much appreciated as yet by the participants of xMOOCs, as though I may not have seen enough blog posts reflecting on such learning.

In summary, I am letting go of MOOC, and be a post-MOOCer so as to look “back” into what works, and what doesn’t. Have I used it at work? Definitely. I don’t think it is that easy for any MOOC to change once the paradigm is set. You may wonder if you are trying to convince an elephant (xMOOC?) to change its direction, when it is already trotting the area for decades. May be you have to understand why it keeps on moving in that direction so you could follow. Is it overly philosophical. I think it’s time to put these into a post.

Thanks again