More about MOOCs... (readings)

[Activity 13] Although the activity only asked us to read one of the papers, I found I was struggling to understand the comments other people had made without reading all three - so here is my summary of them.

Making sense of MOOCs

Daniel (2012), Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility, which provides a comprehensive review of MOOCs.

I found this a very interesting read, although it felt a little disparaging of some of the more recent MOOC offerings, especially those provided by the established, larger, universities.

It helped me unravel the differences between cMOOCs and xMOOCs (although I'm still not sure what the 'x' stands for:

• cMOOCs are the original MOOCs, which make full use of networks and connectivism. They are open in the sense of being open access, but also open-ended and (to some extent) open regarding focus and content. They have a stated topic, but those taking a cMOOC are much freer to explore some topics more than others and to create their own networks within the larger community of students of the course.
• xMOOCs are much closer to 'traditional' CBT and traditional face-to-face teaching models, having transferred existing content - supported by videos of the teacher speaking and a few interactive quizzes - to an online environment. The pedagogy is quite old.

The challenges to connectivist learning on open online courses

Kop (2011), The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course.

The challenges identified were many and varied - but I'm not sure they aren't similar to the challenges faced in a campus-based course or one delivered online (but not as a MOOC). In my experience, lack of confidence (both in the tools and personally), language skills and the sheer volume of information can be overwhelming in all cases. Just because a course is s MOOC doesn't mean there can't be some guidance through it.

The big challenge for many of us is that to be as fully engaged and immersed in a course as is suggested would maybe - just maybe - work for those studying full time, but is simply not possible for those studying while holding down a job, running a home and caring for a family.

The pedagogy of MOOCs

Stacey (2013), The pedagogy of MOOCs.

A relatively easy read, with several videos to break up the narrative, this reading helped set the overall scene - and I wish I'd read it first.

From the perspective of undertaking a MOOC myself - particularly a cMOOC - I found the video from Dave Cormier (Success in a MOOC), which mapped out the five steps to success - to be particularly useful.

These five steps are:

1. Orient - find out where everything is and when anything important is happening
2. Declare - somewhere to put your notes, reactions, reflections and so on. Could be a blog... or something similar.
3. Network - follow people, read what they've done, make comments.
4. Cluster - find people who are looking at things from the same perspective, a subset of the overall network.
5. Focus - remember why you're doing the course and what you want to get out of it. You need to provide your own motivation to continue.

I also found the four activities outlined for PLENK2010 to be very useful in further understanding how this type of open, flexible course works. These activitiies are:

1. Aggregate - picking and choosing what to read/watch/listen to from a selection of provided materials which cover the full range from an introduction to a topic to interviews with experts
2. Remix - Make some notes or use some other method of combining the information you encountered in step 1 (and from other activities).
3. Repurpose - take the remix and using the tools, create some new content.
4. Feed forward - share your work with other people, make it available.

My thoughts...

I like the idea of learning as participation, of learning by connecting to others, sharing experiences and so on. It sounds wonderful...

But there are downsides.

Different people bring different levels of prior experience, and that can be quite daunting to some. I'm not known for my shyness, so I coped... but I did a campus-based PGCCE a few years ago. It was a part-time course, over 2 years, and the prospectus said it was suitable for anyone working in FE, in an organisational training department or as a freelance trainer. I fitted into the last category, so thought it would be fine.

In practice, everyone bar another women and me worked in FE colleges, and had done so for several years. A lot of the "lessons" were delivered by throwing a topic out for discussion, after varying (sometimes minimal) background information... and very gradually over the course of the year I started to pick up on the terminology being used. But I got fed up of having to say, "I have no idea what you mean...", especially when someone would begin something with, "Obviously, ...". No doubt it was obvious to the speaker - and judging from the reaction, was also obvious to everyone else who worked in the sector - but I didn't have a clue. It didn't exactly encourage me to join in the discussions - I became much more of a 'lurker', even though physically in the room. It was almost necessary, as I felt that with the limited time, to take me over what to them were fundamental issues would have used too much of the valuable time. How much harder would that have been online?

I also sometimes feel - either because of pressures of time, or lack of background knowledge - that I want to say to someone, "Yes, I know I could go and have a discussion about it... but really I just want you to tell me. Is it possible or isn't it?"