I know this second day of MOOCMOOC is about learning – on how we learn.
Here is my learning:
Relating to “Nor did I think that the term MOOC had any staying power” I wonder if the word power is what makes this “education revolution” sounds interesting.
May I share this metaphor (as a story)? We are all like viewing and participating in a play/opera on the stage.
Traditionally such play/opera were organised by professionals, and done in theaters. If you want to watch the play/opera, you got to pay, and attend at specific times in theatres.
Just a few years ago, someone thought that we could run a play/opera by offering it free to anyone, without any conditions of entry, and that any one could play a part in the “director, performer, designer, and even actor or audience.” What a wonderful idea!
Who didn’t want to be a performing star, or better still a rock-star performing on the stage, like Gangnam Style performers?
Some would like to be the directors of the play/opera, whilst others would just like to watch and comment. Many of “us”, together with the “directors” were interested in organising and playing different roles in the play/opera, though we might not know what the play turned out to be, whether it would be welcomed and accepted by the audience.
Then, the formal play organizers found this out, and decided to put on a spectacular, inaugural show, with appointed directors, performers, actors etc. Now, this turned the game back to the “traditional play opera” where the only performers are the professional rock stars, though anyone coming in to the theater could watch for free.
You could imagine what happens next. Could you please help in filling in the next part of the story? That’s my learning with you 🙂
Learner Weblog 
The discontented ‘us’ cried far and wide:
“Oh woe is us. The formal play organizers have taken our opera from us, and now all the rock stars have gone there. Our wonderful idea is gone!”
An evil troll appeared to chide the discontented ‘us’:
“What was once built, and taken, can be built again. But even if you build it, they may not come”.
The end.
Aha, what if we made a real movie on this opera? Can we offer for free? I just like to put it into animation. “What was once built, and taken, can be built again. But even if you build it, they may not come”. Wonder if a Black Swarm could help in attracting them to come back!
Thanks for such an ending. Looking for more?
well, the story doesn’t hold a lot of interest for me. You know a lot more about MOOCs than I do, and the story must mean more to you than to me. I can see the value in learned people distributing their knowledge, provided they don’t assume a religious-type role. I think that may be a danger in instructivist leadership. I am still forming my opinions on the latter, but am leaning towards a more regulatory environment if self-regulation in an ecology doesn’t occur. But maybe digital affordances facilitate self-regulation? I’m happy if people benefit, provided there is not predatory receipt of economic rents.
It’s your play….
Thanks for sharing. You are right that the story means more to me. Every one has a story, and so I think you must have wonderful stories to share. I don’t claim I know more about MOOCs than you, and I still haven’t participated in those xMOOCs yet. I see participation in xMOOCs in a different way, and I just want to delay my judgment on them as I don’t have enough information and evidences of learning, from others who are involved in xMOOCs. Would it be a mystery?
What sort of danger do you see in instructivist leadership? Do you mean the religious-type role? Would you like to tell me more about digital affordances facilitating self-regulation?
An interesting post http://thepowerelite.blogspot.nl/2013/01/enter-mooc.html
I think it is possible for instructors to be thought of and to think of themselves as possessing great knowledge, which might lead them to an over-valuation of their gifts. If a node becomes too central a hub, is there the possibility for a large following to form? I sometimes wonder if that is how religious-like followings evolve. However, the affordances of the digital era, in particular the widespread distribution of information, might prevent the collection of knowledge in the hands of any one hub, thereby self-regulating this over-valuation propensity.
I agreed. That is a wise way to prevent the collection of knowledge in the hands of any one hub, especially in the case of religious-like followings.
What about those who might deserve to be highly valued central hubs, for example, Buddha, Ghandi, Christ etc.?
Good question. That relates to religious belief, and so the followers would have their own values. I think these leaders are not about collection of knowledge, but are leading based on a sharing of their beliefs. Aren’t these different from our educational belief and philosophy?
It’s interesting how closely some concepts overlap. Take, for instance, the traditional idea that knowledge can be defined as ‘justified true belief’. Under that usage, religious leaders might be sharing knowledge.
Sounds interesting to me. Knowledge defined as justified true belief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Agreed that religious leaders might be sharing such beliefs, and knowledge as justified true belief. It seems true that religious teaching needs to be based on a hub delivery, to ensure the true beliefs are preached authentically from the leaders (or authority) only. This could be different from the knowledge distribution or collection in a networked learning environment.
I guess there are some good uses for the hub delivery system after all.
Yes, I suppose that is how a society is built up, with governance by government (as a hub).
What we are sharing are also our beliefs, knowledge based on information collected, personal perspectives, and experiences. What about philosophy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfYw9OqD8YA&feature=youtu.be I suppose lots of conversation are also based on our philosophical stance, though they might not be recognised as canonical knowledge, that is, subjective knowledge, and so not objective enough. That’s why I kept on using narrative in reflective, as it is limited to “my view” of the world only.
@Ken, See this (referred by Giogio Bertini) The New Sciences of Complexity fundamentally challenge the underlying epistemologies of modern science and disrupt the quest for certainty, truth, and objective knowledge. Reducing processes fundamentally destroys complex relationships and emergent properties of dynamical systems. This seems to be the case, when we try to treat design as a science, apply learning design in formal course design, where the outcomes turn out to be emergent, especially when it is applied in open and dynamical system like MOOC.
Do you think the learning design model here be applicable to MOOCs?
Yes, I agree that a lot of our conversation stems from our belief system. If one looks closely enough at the conversation (and/or narrative), one can see the beliefs leaking through, and form questions to expose those beliefs more fully (like Socrates did). It is an intricate web of beliefs, knowledge, experience, memes, etc. that we are all continually living in and playing with.
Well said Ulop, Isn’t that the interesting part of our conversation? I reckon we could write a book chapter on this.
Sometimes I think that complexity theory might be an attempt to explain things such as intuition, imagination, animism, and the like. Things that have been marginalized by certainty-seeking science.
I guess that learning model would be helpful, it seems fairly simple to use. Thanks for the link to that book. Doll’s work on complexity and pedagogy is something that I am reading about during a Grad Assistant assignment in my faculty.