Abstract This paper examines how emergent technologies could influence the design of learning environments. It will pay particular attention to the roles of educators and learners in creating networked learning experiences on massive open online courses (MOOCs). The research shows that it is possible to move from a pedagogy of abundance to a pedagogy that supports human beings in their learning through the active creation of resources and learning places by both learners and course facilitators. This pedagogy is based on the building of connections, collaborations, and the exchange of resources between people, the building of a community of learners, and the harnessing of information flows on networks. This resonates with the notion of emergent learning as learning in which actors and system co-evolve within a MOOC and where the level of presence of actors on the MOOC influences learning outcomes. p. 1

Weller (2011) highlights the changes involved in moving from a learning environment of scarcity, based around the lecture model and books, to a web-based environment of abundance and examines different models of pedagogy to deal with these changes. p. 1

Not so long ago, educators would find resources and information and would distribute these to learners in their care, perhaps by displaying them p. 1

Traditional role of teachers in online teaching p. 2

in a learning management system (LMS). They would try to help learners in the development of conceptual frameworks by direct communication and social interaction within a classroom community, be it virtual or face-to-face. p. 2

Emergent technologies p. 2

this puts the responsibility for information gathering, the validation of resources, and the learning process in the hands of learners themselves, and one should question if all adult learners are capable of taking on this responsibility. p. 2

a high level of competency and interest in using a vast array of tools is required to do so effectively. p. 2

Some argue that people’s information behaviour should change from receiving information from a few “super nodes” on networks to moving into the information stream themselves and pulling just-in-time information off the networks, perhaps by receiving validation from other users (Boyd, 2010). p. 2

The challenge includes not only the validation of the information but also the generation of ideas and thoughts that the organized institutional social setting of the past might readily provide, and which is much harder to achieve on a network with much weaker ties. We would argue that one of the major challenges is to create a pedagogy that supports human beings in their learning where the social connections people make on the network provide their learning support. p. 2

Barnett (2002) had his own interpretations of knowledge in relation to uncertainty and change. He would like to see curricula and pedagogy move away from knowledge and skills to be a “pedagogy for human beings.” He discussed a form of knowledge that would involve learners thinking about and confronting themselves with the uncertainties and dilemmas in their own lives. Learning is at the heart of personal change and transformation, and the learner needs to take risks and deal with changing situations in his or her environment. p. 2

Folke (2010) emphasized the need for resilience, so people will anticipate change then influence developments to achieve societal and personal goals. At the heart of sustainable change is developing and helping people to build up an “inner resilience” that guards them from experiencing every change that comes their way as disruptive. Instead, this resilience ensures that they learn to cope with these changes more as part of their continuous “agile” development and learning (Cashman, 2009), recognizing patterns in one situation and making sense of them and applying them in another. p. 3

how to help and support fellow learners in dealing with the new realities of an abundance of information? How to make the most effective use of the tools? How best to position oneself in the continuous stream of information and communication and learn from others? What would motivate people to regulate their learning? p. 3

Shedroff (2009) argued that in current design practice, the main focus should be on creating environments that encourage relationships with individuals, experiences that connect on an emotional and value level. It is not enough to introduce some tools to create an effective working environment; one should also design for the building of connections, collaborations between resources and people. p. 3

Kop based the model on the Kolb learning cycle (Kolb, 1984): The learner has an experience or a thought and would like to find out more or might want to get involved in an activity that requires exploration. He or she then aggregates information, plans the learning activity, and might call on others to discuss the generated ideas and ask for assistance. The learner would quite likely be engaged in a thinking process where links are made with other knowledge. This might in turn lead to a repurposing of the information and resources, for instance by using them to produce something or publish an artifact that might receive comments and feedback from others then leading to an evaluation of the learning process and the development of a further learning cycle. p. 4

In support of the learning cycle model, Kop (2011) puts a high value on the creation of a “place” where learners might feel comfortable, where there is a certain level of trust between participants in that environment—a community. She argues that the development of a place or community would be reinforced by a level of “presence” of the participants. Research by Garrison and Anderson (2003) and Jézégou (2010) emphasized the importance of presence in online learning environments. Presence is mostly defined in the literature as the “illusion of non-mediation” (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). In other words, there is a high level of presence when a participant in an online activity experiences the activity as if it were taking place in real life, without the mediation of the computer. p. 4

Garrison and Anderson (2003), in their research on communities of inquiry, identified three interlinked forms of presence that heighten the engagement of online learners: social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Social presence is characterized by affective engagement, open communication, and a high level of personal address by and between participants. Wenger, Trayner, and p. 4

de Laat (2011, p.10) highlight that “the social fabric of learning” is supported in important ways through collaboration both in a “community” and on the “network.” p. 5

Added value to learning comes not only from the development of trust and confidence in a community, but also from social engagement on networks in producing and re-using discourse and artifacts. Cognitive presence is characterized by a triggering event, an exploration of ideas and points of view, a consensus on the points of view (reached by communication with and feedback from others), and then a testing and discussion of the found solution. Teaching presence involves the design and organization of the course, the facilitation of the course, and direct instruction. p. 5

social presence and cognitive presence could easily form part of the learning experience of a learner in such an environment through the formation and engagement both in communities and, more loosely, on networks. Teaching presence is much harder to facilitate as learners do not necessarily have contact with the educator, but it is the teaching presence that heightens cognitive presence (Annand, 2011). People learning on open networks could have access to knowledgeable others to support them, might find videos to inspire their thought processes, and could also self-regulate and organize their learning. This would, however, require a high level of self-direction by the learner. p. 5

Researchers of learning on online networks can see new roles emerging for educators, such as those of curator, learner, facilitator, supporter of “repurposing” and “remixing” of information, coach, moderator, provider of technical support, lecturer, and “sharer” of resources (Siemens, 2008; Downes, 2010). p. 5

In this context, the MOOC acts as an environment in which new forms of distribution, storage, archiving, and retrieval offer the potential for the development of shared knowledge and forms of distributed cognition. p. 5

Characteristics of learning based on a conversational framework emphasize tutor–student dialogue and actions based on dialogue and reflection (Laurillard, 1993). In this sense, the MOOC allows a new model of learning based on adaptive responses to both discursive and active feedback from facilitators and participants, with the potential for engagement in a continual flow of dialogue and exchange and for reflective action on the part of the learner. p. 5

Findings will be drawn from the Personal Learning Environments Networks and Knowledge course (PLENK2010) and the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course (CCK11) p. 6

This type of learning event is called a connectivist course and was based on four major types of activity: 1) Aggregation – access to a wide variety of resources to read, watch, or play, along with a newsletter called The Daily, which highlighted some of this content; 2) Remixing – after reading, watching, or listening to some content, it was possible to keep track of that somewhere (i.e., by creating a blog, setting up an account with Delicious and creating a new entry, taking part in a Moodle discussion, or using any service on the Internet); 3) Repurposing – participants were encouraged to create something of their own; in these MOOCs, the facilitators suggested and described tools that participants could use to create their own content, and it was envisaged that with practice, participants would become accomplished creators and critics of ideas and knowledge; and 4) Feed Forward – participants were encouraged to share their work with other people in the course and with the world at large. p. 6

This was accomplished with the gRSShopper application (Downes, 2008). gRSShopper, an RSS aggregator, and the Daily newsletter derived from it were used to overcome an identified limitation of a more rigid structure for forum discussions in the Moodle environment. gRSShopper allows a networked conversation to emerge from the personal learning spaces of individual learners through a connect-and-collaborate dynamic that facilitators found to be well suited to the just-in-time collection of information prevalent in MOOCs. The support offered through gRSShopper was significant, as evidenced by a participant who commented, p. 6

It helps learners to map the terrain of the conversation without telling them where to go. Aggregation of independent points of view is one of the key mechanisms to cultivating and harnessing the wisdom of crowds, and gRSShopper does that. p. 7

Surveys were carried out to capture information on learning experiences during the PLENK MOOC, more specifically an End of Course survey (N = 62), an Active Producers survey (N = 31), and a Lurkers survey (N = 74), as well as a Research into the Design, Delivery, and Learning in MOOC PLENK2010 survey (N = 55). p. 7

qualitative methods in the form of virtual ethnography have been used. A researcher was an observer during the course, collecting qualitative data through the observation of activities and engagement and also carrying out a focus group in the final week of the course to gain a deeper understanding of particular issues related to the active participation of learners. p. 7

Moodle data-mining functionality p. 7

gRSShopper aggregator statistics functionality p. 7

Although the number of course registrations was high, an examination of contributions across weeks (i.e., Moodle discussions, blogs, Twitter posts marked with the #PLENK2010 course tag, and participation in live Elluminate sessions) suggested that about 40–60 individuals on average contributed actively to the course on a regular basis by producing blog and discussion posts, while others’ visible participation rate was much lower, indicating a consuming behaviour. PLENK2010 surveys indicated that active participation through the production of digital artifacts and interaction with others was conducive to positive learning outcomes as it helped participants to reflect and involved them in a creative process that stimulated their cognitive processes. p. 9

The social analysis tool SNAPP was used to produce online network visualizations of discussions, such as interactions between participants in the course Moodle forums. Figure 5 presents a complex network of interactions between participants in one Moodle forum discussion in which the facilitator acted as a key instigator of activity. This visualization shows the presence of the facilitator and of a number of active participants on the network who played an important role as well p. 10

Figure 6 illustrates the complexity in making sense of all the interactions on a network, for 1 out of 10 weeks of discussion in the Moodle forum. p. 10

MOOC participants left the environment structured by facilitators and congregated elsewhere by using social media. p. 11

A Facebook (FB) group was set up by the participants of some MOOCs (CCK11, PLENK2010) and was run by the participants as a case of selforganised learning. Much of the participants’ educational use of FB was based around topics of interest, postings, comments related to blog posts or artifacts, post-hoc critiquing of learning experiences and events, and instances of moral support with regards to assessment or learning. A few credit-bearing participants of CCK11 used FB for posting links of their assignments for comments. p. 11

only a limited number of participants joined the FB groups (8.2% of 1641 PLENK2010 participants and less than 18% of 700+ CCK11 participants), and only a small proportion of FB group members were active at any one time during the course. Subtle concerns and issues arose. Some participants did not join the PLENK or CCK11 FB group for privacy and personal security reasons. Others who joined the FB groups remained as peripheral participants for the duration of the course. Participants also highlighted the need p. 11

for a sense of trust and feeling comfortable and confident to be able to participate, as well as a sense of presence and community. Some learners preferred the Moodle forum over FB as they expressed that they were able to learn more about the background, ideas, and beliefs of other participants than in FB. The CCK11 MOOC did not have a Moodle environment, and an excerpt from a blog post of a participant of CCK11 highlights some relevant issues: p. 12

The relative “character” anonymity of participants in the CCK11 as compared with the PLENK2010 cohort was an obstacle. The PLENK (Moodle) forum provided an easily navigated discussion interface. From the contributions on a wide variety of topics, I learnt a lot about the passions, the character, the beliefs of the participants. We were fellow learners, not just network nodes, and I would imagine a certain degree of trust was established between many of the participants. Facebook, the seeming preferred CCK11 gathering place, does not provide the same level of personal connection for me, so I am not currently feeling particularly nodish. p. 12

This highlights the need of participants for social presence, but in a self-determined way. Learning under MOOCs is an interactive experience best achieved in a climate of relatedness, care, mutual respect, and support. Such care is offered, not imposed, and respects humans’ need for autonomy, self-determination, and challenge, as well as for security (Arnold, 2005, p. 18). p. 12

PLENK2010 and CCK11 participants made use of Twitter, a Web 2.0 microblogging tool that enhanced social presence by providing a mechanism for just-in-time social interactions. It provided authentic opportunities to connect and be perceived as “real” in ways that traditional LMS-contained tools could not. There were participants who valued Twitter and found it the best tool for learning, connecting, and interacting with PLENKers. A further survey in CCK11 revealed that participants ranked Twitter as the most important tool for interaction and communication in the MOOC. The feedback from some participants, however, suggests that Twitter was still too new and foreign to them in PLENK2010, and a significant number of participants were hesitant to use it in public: p. 12

Observations of the use of Twitter, however, showed that it supported coherence and connections between different tools during PLENK2010 and CCK11, including back channels to synchronous sessions, updates of news and events, and links to recordings. p. 12

Women tended to look for similarities or commonalities (i.e., in issues of language) that could become a source of bonding. In contrast, some men had a tendency to practice one-upmanship, in the sense of trying to keep one step ahead of other participants as competitors. Men were more task-oriented in their use of language, while women put more emphasis on socioemotional dimensions. For example, in one course activity that was taken up by PLENK participants, the female participant tended to play more of an assistant/supportive role and responded in an inclusive way, while her male counterpart tended to delegate tasks. p. 13

It is clear, however, that there were deficiencies in the support structures of the MOOCs. The small number of facilitators (only four for PLENK2010 against 1,641 participants and two for CCK11 against 700+ participants) available to support learners in the MOOCs raised concerns about their level of interaction, participation, and engagement: “Too little participation and interaction by the facilitators. Be sure to provide a higher level of participation by facilitators.” If teacher presence supports cognitive presence, then support by facilitators and experienced MOOC participants is clearly important to enhance the learning process. The open nature of MOOCs means a lack of advance knowledge about participant numbers and a difficulty in projecting facilitator requirements at the start of a MOOC p. 13

Some participants were expecting directions from the facilitators, while others found the course intimidating, overwhelming, and lacking in excitement as it progressed: “The course was essentially without directions. […] The scale of things is always something that I find both fascinatingly cool and at times a bit intimidating and overwhelming.” p. 13

The choice of tools allowed learner autonomy, but was at the same time seen as a reason for a fragmentation of the conversation: “too much freedom in choice of tools unnecessarily fragments the conversation unless other tools are used to recombine the process.” p. 13

The difficulties in evaluating the course and its objectives were highlighted by some participants as they found it hard to assess learning outcomes. The objectives were not set by facilitators, but were personal goals set by individual participants, so they were different for each person p. 13

Other barriers to learning were time zone differences, language differences, difficulties in connecting with others in different spaces, lack of skills in the use of tools, difficulties in making connections with facilitators and/or learners, and power relations. p. 13

Furthermore, a high number of participants mentioned personal reasons, such as lack of time to participate, as explanations for why they took on more of a consuming role in the course rather than an active, participative one. p. 13

Some experienced MOOC participants realized that the learning environment could be selfconstructed. They also found improvements in the organization of content and instructions over past MOOCs: “Last year I would have said seeming lack of structure was a barrier. With experience the structure appears or can be self-constructed.” p. 14

Respondents to the PLENK2010 survey were appreciative of how the facilitators led without directing and also of the work and engagement provided by the facilitators. Thus, teaching presence, especially exemplified through course design and the type of facilitation, turned out to have a powerful effect on student perceptions of support, inclusiveness, and overall satisfaction with the course. The participants valued greatly the autonomy on connections and participation in networks: “We were given free choice and allowed autonomy about our ways to connect and participate in the network. I greatly value this approach to learning and working together.” p. 14

Meaningful learning occurs if social and teaching presence forms the basis of design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive processes for the realization of personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes. p. 15

The current research pointed to a maturing of e-learning users; the more experience in networked learning and through MOOCs, the higher the level of participation. People produced artifacts and created learning networks when confident with the technology and with the topic under discussion, while among new MOOCers there was a higher level of consumption of resources created by others. These results confirm research by Mak, Williams, and Mackness (2010) showing an emerging and growing practice across learners to develop those new affordances in innovative and nuanced ways. p. 15

The new roles that the teacher as facilitator needs to adopt in networked learning environments include aggregating, curating, amplifying, modelling, and persistently being present in coaching or mentoring. p. 16

Novices can best be supported through a series of activities that are structured on connectivist learning principles with a goal to enhance autonomy and the building of personal learning networks. Such scaffolding is necessary to build confidence and self-efficacy and to ensure novices will feel confident and competent in using technologies and are supported throughout the course. p. 16

Scaffolding of networked learning - similar to Bielaczyk's "training to do Knowledge Building" p. 16

References p. 18