What sort of MOOCs would emerge in the coming future?

Thanks jenny for sharing her views and experience in her post here on OLDSMOOC.  I am interested in knowing the OLDSMOOC though won’t be working on a project.  I think we have now come up with a gap in between c and x MOOCs as it seems that they are coming from two different universes. The prescribed and emergent learning in any course could be charted out, as this footprints of emergence have delineated. The reality is that there isn’t enough connection (or conduit) in between the two sort of MOOCs, leading to “island” of technology automation (where one is teacher-centred, and the other more inclined to be learner-centred).  The reason that I bring this out is that this could be confusing for the participants of the MOOC, in particular the educators if they don’t have a thorough understanding of the pedagogy and curriculum design of the MOOCs.

Currently, it seems obvious that most, if not all xMOOCs (i.e. Coursera, edX, Udacity) are based on an instructivist approach, whilst cMOOCs are based on a connectivist approach.  There are certain MOOCs which seem to be based on an instructivist/constructivist approach.

The cMOOCs:

The xMOOCs

The challenge is: we don’t seem to be guided by a thorough research paradigm which is empirically based, when developing these MOOCs along those lines, as I have suggested in my research proposal here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am re-posting here for reference.

My suggested assumptions in MOOC include:

• people would learn in a self-directed manner
• Knowledge is distributed
• Knowledge is negotiated
• Knowledge is emergent
• Knowledge is rhizomatic (thanks to Dave’s video posted – refer to How to be successful in MOOC?)
• Learning is capacity to construct, navigate and traverse across networks
• personal learning networks would be a far better way for people to learn
• people like to learn via social networks
• people know how to connect (people have the communication, literacy and critical literacy skills)
• people know how to use the technology to connect
• people are self motivated (intrinsic motivation)
• people like to accept challenges, chaos and complexity is just part of the learning process
• people don’t need to follow a course or qualification for learning to be effective
• Learning is emergent, and is based on connections, engagement and interactions
• Learning is open
• Identity in networked learning is based on individual’s “participation, interaction” in the networks, and is reflective of ones involvement in the media, it’s dynamic, adaptive
• Individual and social learning is emphasised – cooperation
• Sensemaking and wayfinding are important

whereas on the other hand, the more formal or traditional education/learning approach or even the online approach of:

• people need to learn in a structured manner, in a course (face to face or online), with teacher’s instruction (zpd) zone of proximal development,
• people construct knowledge via a constructivist pedagogy - with an expert.
• Knowledge is acquired
• Learning is about acquisition of knowledge, skills and experience
• people like to learn with Learning Management Systems (LMS)
• people prefer to learn independently (in a closed environment) (behind the walls in schools) or learn collaboratively in a group or team
• people don’t have enough skills, knowledge and experience to use technology to connect,formal training/education is the solution
• people don’t want chaos, complexity – don’t want to be overwhelmed with information or knowledge
• people need to be motivated with rewards (extrinsic motivation)
• people need to follow a course or qualification for learning to be effective
• Learning is based on instruction by the teachers
• Learning is closed (in a closed classroom or closed online network)
• Identity is based on the association of oneself as a student or that of the group – it’s static
• Group learning is emphasised – collaboration
• Teaching and close mentoring are important

I need to think more about the above, whether my assumptions about both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation will affect how people face challenges, technology and connecting / relating to others.

The above statements are just set to be a “polarised” one, and these are just my first thoughts.  I need to draw a mind map to show the relationship at a later stage, once I have re-visited our research papers on Blogs and Forums as Communication and Learning Tools in a MOOC and The Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC.

If you felt comfortable with idea, it may be fun to collaborate together using a shared workspace for mind / concept map or drawing tool.

Besides, there are many other factors and concepts on learning that need to be included in this research.

I think it could be interesting to conduct research on PLENK2010 based on our experience and involvement in CCK08/CCK09/edfutures/CritLit2010.

I am not sure if we could thresh out some research questions, as a follow up study of CCK08.

Suggested title:

Essential critical success factors in the design and delivery of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

Note: based on PLENK2010/CCK09 experience

Research questions:

1. What are the design factors in an open online course?  (Consider the connectivist principles)

2. What are the delivery factors in an open online course?

3. How would educators and participants evaluate an open online course (PLENK2010)?

Based on the various reports and blog postings on xMOOCs, I could come up with the following features for typical xMOOCs:

more formal or traditional education/learning approach or even the online approach of:

• people need to learn in a structured manner, in a course (face to face or online), with teacher’s instruction (zpd) zone of proximal development,
• people construct knowledge via a constructivist pedagogy - with an expert.
• Knowledge is acquired
• Learning is about acquisition of knowledge, skills and experience
• people like to learn with Learning Management Systems (LMS)
• people prefer to learn independently (in a closed environment) (behind the walls in schools) or learn collaboratively in a group or team
• people don’t have enough skills, knowledge and experience to use technology to connect, formal training/education is the solution
• people don’t want chaos, complexity – don’t want to be overwhelmed with information or knowledge
• people need to be motivated with rewards (extrinsic motivation) – this is achieved through the award of a “certificate”
• people need to follow a course or qualification for learning to be effective
• Learning is based on instruction by the teachers (short videos, quizzes, discussion boards facilitated by professors/teaching assistants)
• Learning is closed (in a closed classroom or closed online network) (though it could be open when groups are established in certain social media platforms – FB groups, twitter etc.)
• Identity is based on the association of oneself as a student or that of the group – it’s static ( this is evidenced only in some cases, as it seems that participants are associated with the course, or the xMOOC providers, and particular groups formed based on certain languages, or countries)
• Group learning is emphasised – collaboration

I think the future MOOCs would likely be based on connected MOOCs, with some common features of both x and c MOOCs in order to thrive, though we have an urgent need to conduct further research to validate those hypothesis and assumptions.

Complex Learning Theories

Here is my first post in 2013.  Happy New Year.

There is an interesting post followed with a conversation on the Guide to 4 complex learning theories on FB, referred by Grainne Conole.

My comments:

Interesting guide. I have difficulties in interpreting some of the content of the infographic though:

1. Is the learning theorists for George Siemens with a basis include Vygotsky, Papert Clark and Social Constructivism? I found some similarities and differences between Connectivism and Social Constructivism, as I shared in my blog posts here and here.

2. On How learning occurs -distributed within a network, social, technologically enhanced, recognizing and interpreting patterns. My interpretation is: Network formations and connections – neural, conceptual, and external (people, information sources). This actually embraces all of the behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and social constructivism, situated learning, and COP as the levels of networks is not only socially situated and appropriated, but also conceptually (cognitively) recognised, interpreted, but also neurologically connected (formed, and reformed). I have summarised it here http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/

3. Influencing factors – diversity of network. How about the strengths, types (openness), technological impact, and uniqueness (autonomy) of networks?

4. How transfer occurs – connecting to (adding nodes). There are many ways of connecting, and disconnecting (including filtering unwanted noise or distractions), and re-connecting, and the concept of connection could be at a micro and macro level.

5. Type of learning best explained – complex learning, rapid changing core, diverse knowledge sources. Upon closer examination, the type of learning would be based on the assumptions of learning. What is “best” explained? What sort of assumptions are made in classifying certain scenarios as complex learning? Here we might have to note whether we are referring to open or closed learning environment. Even in the case of closed learning environment, there could be complex learning when learners and agents interact and form connections in complex manners.

Hi Martyn Cooper, I think the Laurillard Conversational model is very useful in the case of “formal learning scenario”, especially under a “closed educational learning environment” where a teacher-student transactional model is defined. I have quoted that in my blog post too.

What would happen if the student becomes a teacher, and interacts with different sources (i.e. agents, information sources, and networks) and posts and shares his/her knowledge with others in the public and open space. He or she may be playing the role of both a teacher and student (a dual role), and could be internalizing the knowledge (the tacit knowledge) in particular, when reflecting on certain experiences.

So, the Conversational model could be both socially oriented (with an external agent, a teacher or peer), and also internally initiated (with oneself, or with an artifact, such as writings or pictures, etc.).

There are again certain assumptions here on learning, where I have briefly summarised under the Assumptions Theory. In summary, I am not sure if Laurillard Conversational model could be extended to include the internal conversation, as it seems to relate mainly to the social constructivist model of learning. What do you think Grainne Conole and Martyn Cooper?

A reflection of MOOC Learning Design Part 2

I am interested in the Learning Design of MOOC, as I have posted here.  I still haven’t been able to conclude what would be the most valuable one – based on x and c MOOCs, as they seem to address different cohorts of learners, though there are always common principles which would give rise to great learning experience in MOOC.

Relating to OLDS MOOC, Jenny asks how much prescription is needed to facilitate emergent learning, or indeed, any learning.

My response to Jenny’s post on learning design:

I think I have now become a practitioner of emergent learning, rather than just a theorist. If we are to look at what actually happens in the open learning spaces – the COPs, the networks, they are all so vibrant, so fluid, & adaptive. Even the xMOOCs are moving along that trajectory, IMO, as many professors like Keith Devlin has done. Many MOOCs educators have co-designed and co-developed their MOOCs based on the changing needs and responses of the participants. I hope more researchers and scholars could appreciate why a networked and emergent approach towards designing a curriculum is both necessary and important for its sustainability. I have composed a blog post sharing what a just in time approach would be like, based on a connectivist approach. I just think the more autonomy a MOOC allows for the participants to experience and experiment, the better would be the outcome of learning. Aren’t we trying to encourage all these participants to experiment with the state of the art – cutting edge technology? Jenny’s papers on emergent learning provide a rich resource for such curriculum design. I know you have also got great resources on the design of curriculum – with the great books written. What do you think? John

Jenny in her post on emergent-learning-the-designers-role-the-learners-experience says:

Our experience (i.e. the authors of Footprints of Emergence) is that drawing a footprint from the design perspective and from the learner experience perspective can result in very different images for the same course. This raises the question of whether designer intentions and learner experience can be aligned.

If they can’t, then to what extent can the learner experience be validated by anyone other than the learner?

If the designer’s intentions and learner experience are not aligned, then the learner’s experience could still be validated based on an emergent approach – for instance, by suggesting learner to document and reflect on their learning using their own set of curriculum, and developed criteria for assessments.  This is actually the case for some of the learning for PhD’s students, whereas they are expected to explore the forefront of knowledge and create their own space, and thus develop new knowledge that could contribute to their specialised domain.  Other ways for validation includes the commenting and reflection on each others’ blog posts, collaboration with others in communities and networks, cooperation with others in joint writings on wikis or research, leading to the publication of research papers, just like what some of the participants of MOOCs have done in the past.  The use of e-portfolio and PLE are also good means for self-assessment, which could be validated by the learner’s immediate mentor or coach on an ongoing basis, rather than the course instructor or professor.

This would likely address the alignment issue in a totally different way though some of the above approaches might need to be developed and documented using a social contract or agreement, in order to ensure openness and transparency is maintained.

The validity, authenticity, reliability and fairness issues relating to the evidences collected in such assessment would also need to be thoroughly examined and addressed in such a course, in an ongoing basis, in order to cater for the emergent learning that evolved.

Should we expect learners bend to fit the curriculum/learning design or should the learning design bend to fit the learner? This is a difficult question if you don’t know who your learners are going to be, e.g. in MOOCs.

So finally, at what point is a mismatch between design intentions and learner experience constructive and at what point is it destructive and how might this affect emergent learning?

My response is: If we are to structure a MOOC based on self-directed learning and self-organised learning, with an ultimate goal of supporting learners in sense-making and way-finding, then learner experience must be catered for in such a course, in order to continue in supporting the learner’s learning.  This is similar to the principles of Ergonomics, whereas we should be designing the machines, environment to suit individuals, rather than re-molding or changing the individuals to suit the machines or environment.  It would take another post to elaborate on this important learning principle.

Jenny posted an insightful post here on emergent learning. My response as shown below:

Hi Jenny, Well said, and a great summary.  I watched the videos, and reflected on them in my blog too, though I related to my experience in a slightly different way – on landscape of practice.  What I would like to add is Dave Snowden’s views about emergent learning, based on his model of Cynefin (see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8).

Emergent learning would be best fit to complex (and possibly chaotic) learning scenarios, rather than complicated and simple scenarios, so the risks involved would likely be high and would need to be adequately controlled and constrained when “managed” under an institutional framework.  The current debates about the best business model for MOOCs well illustrate such difficult decision about the embracing of MOOC in their organisation, as education business is no longer confined to a closed system of space.  There are stakeholders – students, participants, and various outside government authorities callings – with different demands, like compliance to accreditation and assessment, peer assessment, credits awards to degrees, badge awards, etc.  These are ongoing debates and could ultimately influence the curriculum design designed by the designers and institutions.  Some of the professors of MOOCs have to drop their original designs – like certain assignments, or examinations, in light of the feedback from participants, and concerns about cheating, plagiarism.  All these point to the need of a continuous and critical review of how the curriculum of MOOCs should be planned and structured “in the first place”.  These examples of emergent learning are rarely perceived as “footprints of emergence” as not every one perceived them that way.  Perhaps, there aren’t one single participant who could master all these concepts and principles in a holistic way, and this requires substantial experience in sense-making and way-finding in order to un-earth these unusual phenomena and explain the tacit knowledge in an explicit way.  There aren’t text-books or design handbooks detailing the underlying principles of emergence that relate to a connectivist and emergent nature of MOOC (both cMOOCs and xMOOCs) except what you and Roy have done so far, IMO.  Back to you.  John