On how #edcmooc did a cmooc on Coursera

By demonstrating that you could build a very “open” course on Coursera, the University of Edinburgh team in charge of E-learning and Digital Cultures succeeded in breaking down some walls between the large-scale free course (called xMOOC by some critics) and the cMOOC connectivist learn-fest.

How did that happen?

  • Incubating a community: Long lead-in time for the learning community. This made the community ready to go at the start of the course and the early birds in the community were very open and welcoming
  • Participants: for a large part of the participants, this was a professional/personal development event about the affordances of MOOCs.
  • Course subject: reflecting on learning and being human in relation to technology. It was learning about learning and the affordances of the Internet for learning. The fact that this course was built on a MOOC platform associated with “just free” open courses, was a nice demonstration in overcoming technological determinism (technological determinism was a subject in the first week).
  • Organization of the contents: a short-film festival each week, with related readings, accompanied by clear instructions on what was considered to be “core” material and what was additional. Encouraged to do your own thing with the contents.
  • Also, all course contents were freely available on the Net, contributing to the “opennes” of this course
  • Organization of the interaction: very loose. Create your own blog and add your feed to the aggregator. Use the hashtag so everything is findable across different platforms. Participate as much as you want, where you want, no need to use the coursera forum.
  • The instructors were there, in the forum, commenting on blogs, responding on Twitter. In their second Google Hangout (they did two), they discussed, among many other things, their strategy on teacher presence. Christine Sinclair mentioned, for instance, that she felt like participating in a student group, but that she did not want to barge in as a teacher.
  • Testing and outcomes: create a digital artefact, one, at the very end. There was no testing at all for recall of terms and concepts, instead there was an encouragement to generate new content.

Wonderful #EDCMOOC wrap-up, video-style by Wayne Barry:

The Edunauts: Educational Explorers for the Digital Age from Wayne Barry on Vimeo.

Quote of the day: What would the Internet do?

In an environment that has proven its resilience, growth, and capability, should we not emulate the very ideals of the internet in the learning experiences we create?

From: Alan Levine in a guest blog on WCET Learn: “ds106 is Made of the Stuff the Web is Made of”, http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/ds106/

A write-up on Open Digital Storytelling course ds106 (http://ds106.us/),  an open online course since January 2011.

Quote of the day: MOOCs and the Wild West

“Why do we keep talking about MOOCs?  If I hear that word one more time…”  Nothing in her decades of research made room for the possibility that the sage on the stage would come riding back into town on a Coursera pony.

Bold by me.

Read more:
Margaret Soltan: “Mooc Whipped”, University Diaries, Inside Higher Ed, 13th of February.

Hold the R-word

Distance learning is nothing new, e-learning is nothing new, free online learning materials are nothing new, and yet there is a lot of talk about the Massive Open Online Course bringing revolution, if not, forcing Higher Education to evolve.

There is a lot of venture capital going to educational technology. That means that a  lot of people have an interest in talking about a revolution. But what can we learn from the success of massive free courses and from the way they are being discussed?

Some universities are producing young people with debt (see: Clay Shirky), rather than with degrees. When free courses by big name institutions come along, that seems really promising, but which part of higher education can a MOOC replace? And why has this happened, in the USA (other countries have other Higher Ed models)?

There is a huge audience “yearning” for higher learning. This might not be the people who we normally conceive of as “students” in higher education.

In some course designs peer-to-peer organization of Q&A is seen as the solution for the fact that the teacher can’t be everywhere, and in some set-ups, this “peeragogy” (See Howard Rheingold and colleagues) is a central value. Anyhow, the question as to whether this interaction between participants leads anywhere remotely similar to a guided conversation with an “expert”, is being debated –especially by people coming from the Humanities. Tip: blogs by faculty members actually enrolling in a MOOC are good reads.

Some voices say that the evolution to watch in relation with MOOCs, takes place in the publishing sector.

This post is a short write-up of a few themes that I just have to get rid of before the new #edcmooc weekly topic rolls around. Some sloppy referencing and half ideas. So sorry.

The chance to have your work viewed, your institution to be known as having influential people in it, could increasingly be a matter of whether your material is used in a MOOC.

Dave Cormier, inventor of the term “MOOC”, on the importance of the academic (institution)’s brand in the MOOC. 

Dave Cormier, Will MOOC as curation kill the paid journal? 3 February 2013

The chance to h…

Sorting out “MOOCs”

It is a good season for “MOOCs”, Massive Open Online Courses, and you can spot several of them in full action. But the term “MOOC” has come to cover a range of wildly different  kinds of ehm… learning events. Indeed, for some of these, “course”, might be the wrong word.

It will probably not be long before we will start to use different words for different kinds of MOOCs.

In 2008, the term MOOC was coined to describe courses that were experimenting with the connectivist take on learning.

Later, the term was applied to free courses that were instuctor-led and structured around canned lectures and one course platform, but the need was felt to distinguish between the merely “free” courses and the courses with distributed contents, and matching leaner-centered approaches to the organization of the course. In came the distinction between cMOOC and xMOOC. But that good vs. bad model is not very useful to describe the range of approaches that exists.

Lisa Lane came up with three kinds of MOOCs, which are loosely divided by the dominant goal (they all have networks task and content).

  • Network based (the connectivist approach with a big role for community and content created by the learners, for instance CCK12)
  • Task based (developing a skill by doing, like the digital literacies course DS106)
  • Content based (instructor-led content acquisition, typical for the high-profile for-profit initiatives)

The content based kind of MOOC, is less about exploring new pedagogies and more about exploring new business models for higher education. Lisa Lane puts the big course platforms (Coursera, Udacity, edX) squarely in the content based category. And she laments the way “MOOC” has become a label for straightforward up-scaled instructivist courses. (http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/2012/11/five-short-years-to-mooc-corruption/)

But with EDCMOOC, the E-Learning and Digital Cultures course run by the University of Edinburgh on Coursera, you get a hybrid kind of MOOC with a big learning community that has organized itself outside of the course platform, months before the MOOC-part of the course had even started. Students are free to use the course platform for discussions, or to use their own choice of social platform. The only assignment is a peer reviewed final digital artefact. The content of the MOOC is also encouraging dialogue and reflecting on the affordances of online education, in the best of the connectivist tradition.

On the other hand, it does latch on to a course taught in Edinburgh, it is not a coreless MOOC (how Alex Couros planned the Educational Technology MOOC, ETMOOC).

It is not the course platform that determines the type of MOOC , it is the “design” or set-up of the MOOC and the organisation of its contents and interactions.

I am still looking for a better way to describe the different kinds of MOOC. If I find one, I’ll post it here, promise. The kinds of online learning events or sites that are being called a “MOOC” are so different, that we really need a new set of labels. Right now, we have one big term for things that resemble online unconferences and game-ified language learning programs. “MOOC” is such a catchy name that the press is slapping it on every big and free online course, but we need a better definition based on a set of attributes that goes beyond goals. And I don’t think a MOOC typology based on business models is what I’m looking for… Some elements that can lead to a better “grid” of MOOCs are:

  • Is there a strong core, a simultaneous for-credit course, for instance, or is it a donut-shaped cloud of dots (sorry, but you get my drift)?
  • Is it a learning event with a start date for interactions between a group of people who follow the same “course”, or can a learner start a sequence of learning packages anytime (Like Duolingo or hackdesign.org)?
  • What is the rythm of the introduction of new subject matter? (2 weeks in etmooc, which is nice)
  • Are there different paths possible: strong engagement/weak engagement?
  • Rock star tutors/teachers/leaders or peeragogy?
  • What is being measured, registered, penalized in terms of course analytics?