Key ideas

One of the first papers(?) about MOOCs, referring to CCK08. Based on a single survey (n=83).

Some very useful concepts:

• multi-tool learning environments
• situating open courses with OER
• Personal Knowledge Management
• motivation/time constraints in formal and informal online courses
• different personal motivations for success

From the criticism of VLEs and other institution-managed platforms (Wilson, 2005) through the debate about personal learning environments (PLEs) (Attwell, 2007) to the concept of “loosely coupled teaching” (Leslie, 2007) there has been a shift from centralized, specialized, institutionally owned systems (VLE, LMS) towards distributed, general-purpose, user-centered, and user-owned systems, such as social software tools.

In the context of informal education, the integration of multiple and heterogeneous environments and tools may represent the starting point of a learner's knowledge construction quest. Many people are using blogs, wikis, social networks, messaging systems, etc. The underlying idea is that people are comfortable with tools they consider to be their own, and they may wish to continue to use them when engaged in learning activities. Therefore it becomes important to understand the extent to which multi-tool environments are effective in supporting education and learning and to derive some guidelines on their integration in order to optimize their effectiveness for learning.

Anderson (2008) proposes a model in which the “affordances of the net” play a key role and where it is possible to include the many different forms of teaching and learning supported by present web technologies, with an outlook for future semantic web capabilities.

This is an important point which I should investigate further - ways of articulating why enabling both a diversity of tools, and tools controlled by the learner him/herself, is important (and subsequently why there needs to be ways of "bringing it all back together again")

In the literature, there are studies (for example, Liu et al., 2009) and guidelines for the effective use of VLEs (Weller, 2007) as well as comprehensive reviews of technology uses for education (for example, Mason & Rennie, 2007). The UK JISC published a study on the effective use of social software to support student learning and engagement (JISC, 2009)

Clarebout and Elen (2006) carried out a meta-analysis of research about the use of different tools in computer-based learning

As Siemens (2009) says, they are examples of shifting from a content-centered model towards “socialization as information objects.” An OOC can be attended potentially by a large number of students, all over the world, provided that there are sustainability plans for the instructors. For example, it is unreasonable to think that a teacher is able to evaluate hundreds or thousands of blog posts weekly. Thus the real potential of an OOC is to be found in the emergence of learning networks among participants in a many-to-many relationship, rather than the traditional one-to-many model of interactions between a teacher and his or her students.

More recently, the idea of a “networked lifelong learner” is offered by studies on personal knowledge management (PKM). Recent literature connects learning-to-learn competencies with technologies under the umbrella of this term (Cigognini et al., 2009) and identifies the related required skills as a multi-faceted set of abilities (Martin, 2006), including digital literacy, information literacy, and the ability to effectively use social software to build one‟s own learning environment (Pettenati et al., 2009). Social and relational aspects of the knowing knowledge attitude in the connectivistic framework (Siemens 2004, 2006) inevitably highlight that mastering technology is but one among many complex skills

Definitively something I need to look up more literature on

Useful note that most writing about motivation and engagement in online learning has been concerned with formal courses

Although formal attendance seemed to be the main driver for completing assignments and the course, the main reason for not completing the course was a lack of time. Mostly by informal students - it seems that informal learning experiences compete with other activities for personal time allotment. Learners, in the absence of a stronger motivation, attend only partially.

Literature on engagement in distance higher education is mainly related to formal courses (for example, Angelino & Natvig, 2009).

Nash (2005) quotes several studies in which authors emphasize the impact of factors external to the academic environment to explain distance learners‟ drop-out rates. Ostman and Wagner (as cited in Nash, 2005) reported as early as 1987 a “lack of time” as the most commonly quoted reason by distance learners for course noncompletion. In the CCK08 case, it seems that the impact of technology was low since time still appears as the most important factor. Other authors, such as Miller, Rainer, and Corely (as cited in Nash, 2005), have analyzed the relationship between time and computer literacy in student attrition. p. 9

Nor can we consider participants who did not complete the course to be drop-outs. Because they have different aims and motivations, perhaps they do not consider course incompletion to be a defeat. Further investigation would be necessary to better understand if the very notion of a course really fits open course initiatives.

The daily was universally well-liked, however only the voice of one person - suggests in the future enhancing it with more voices. Underlines need for aggregation, and limiting information overflow.