Here is my response to Christina’s post on difficulties researching cmoocs.
How to measure the effectiveness of a cMOOC?
There are 4 semantic conditions of networks that Stephen Downes has proposed. As Stephen has commented, those properties – openness, diversity, autonomy and connectedness & interactivity is not perfect in cMOOCs. Besides Connectivism as applied in cMOOCs could likely best be based on an informal learning, rather than a traditional institutional model.
I have reiterated that the constraints typically imposed with an institutional model would be huge challenge for administrators and educators to adapt, as is witnessed even in xMOOCs, where a totally new approach (such as flipping the class or flipped learning) as perceived by professors would be at odds with the mass lecture approach typical in mass-education, with a broadcasting model. How to overcome those challenges, and ensure learning is more effective, when cMOOCs are embedded in an institutional model?
Here is my response that I perceive as a way to measure the effectiveness of cMOOCs – in its
1. awareness of Networked Learning and Connectivism as an “informal learning paradigm”,
2. an adoption and leveraging of the 4 properties- openness, diversity, autonomy and connectedness & interactivity when networking,
3. an achievement of personal goals with immersion in the network and community (and community of practice) on personal basis,
4. adoption of Personal Learning Environment and Network PLE/PLN in pursuit of life-long learning, and
5. a shift of frame of reference and paradigm from knowledge transmission to knowledge sharing and creation model under a knowledge ecology.