Key ideas

Mainly narrative report on MOOCs for SSHRC, focuses a lot on potential for digital economy in Canada. Some interesting perspectives, and subjective experiences from MOOC organizers and participants

• Massive Open Online Novel (Mongoliad)
• Indigo MBA (reading list + discussion forum hosted by bookstore)

added to MOOC

The MOOC is open and invitational. No one who wishes to participate is excluded; people negotiate the extent and nature of their participation according to their individual needs and wishes, regardless of whether those needs are defined, for example, by personal interest or workplace requirements.

The large scale of the community, maximizes the possibility that the “long tail” effect will enable someone with even the most esoteric interests within the overall focus of the MOOC to find people with whom to share and collaborate.

It means also that the specific expertise of the facilitator can reach the maximum possible number of people interested in accessing that expertise.

• the extent to which it can support deep enquiry and the creation of sophisticated knowledge;
• the breadth versus the depth of participation;
• whether and under what conditions successful participation can extend beyond those with broadband access and sophisticated social networking skills;
• identifying the processes and practices that might encourage lurkers, or “legitimate peripheral participants”, to take on more active and central roles;
• the impact or value of even peripheral participation, specifically the extent to which it might contribute to participation in the digital economy in extra-MOOC practices;
• specific strategies to maximize the effective contribution of facilitators in particular and more advanced participants in general;
• the role for accreditation, if any,
• how it might be implemented

This feeling was reinforced by the finding of the openhabitat project, which suggested that 'eventedness' was a key factor in participation in any online educational endeavour. (Cormier, 2009)

In live sessions, large difference between how much expertise students have, and how much they've previously engaged with the planned material.

Also difference between comments aimed at format, structure, content, etc.

Given that MOOCs focus so strongly on contributing, and networks with “give and take”, they might be more suited to people who already have a basic understanding of a field, and have “something meaningful to add”.

Bonnie's feeling:

While I was comfortable contributing my ideas in the diffuse environment of the MOOC when I felt I had something to offer the distributed nature of the course became difficult for me when we ventured into topics which were content-heavy and unfamiliar to me.

This can be an individual phenomenon, or something experienced by many at the same time, which can make the entire social experience ebb and dip.

Once a student “disengages” in this way, it can be very difficult to “come back on”.

Suggestion: It would be wise for MOOC facilitators to consider strategies for scaffolding or sustaining participation through content-heavy or less personalized topics.

This could be reformulated as saying students get most out of courses when they are learning within their Zone of Proximal Development, rather than delving into an entirely new discourse or field. Having some pre-existing familiarity with the topic offers points of orientation and meaning-making within the course, and affords a learner currency in the transactional, networked interactions of a MOOC.

MOOCs are still negotiations of power, in which people establish the right to speak and be heard based on relational roles.

Bonnie's case: Bonnie's unusual role as partner of one course organizer, and having a PhD supervisor who was a co-student. Being uncomfortable with raising certain criticism in the public sphere - the value of “backchannelling”, learning that does not happen in the open.

Consistently taking open, declarative positions, cross-examining and critiquing the work of others, and challenging authority and received wisdom are all critical to full participation in a MOOC, yet are discourses heavily identified with privilege. This can be a particular issue when a MOOC is popular across many different cultures that work on very different ideas of respect for power, authority and knowledge.

Strong views and opinions can create flare ups that participants may find intimidating. Differences in cultural norms and language barriers also contribute to misunderstandings. Patience, tolerance, suspension of judgment, and openness to other cultures and ideas are required to form social connections and negotiating misunderstandings.

We’re also starting to understand the power and control relationship in a MOOC - participants are quite vocal when they perceive that instructors are violating the spirit of open courses. As instructors we have to be aware of these expectations - an open course relies on the effort and participation of many.

it’s very easy to fragment content and conversations, the key challenge was, and continues to be, finding a way to connect the fragmented pieces in such a way as to provide learners with a sense of knowledge coherence.

While we experimented with different technical approaches (such as using Downes’ gRSShopper to aggregate blogs, encourage participants to track the course tag on Google Alerts, use of the Daily newsletter to provide a reasonably consistent summary of course activity), the social interactions of learners in the course provided the most sensemaking approach for most participants. The formation of sub-networks for discussion and collaboration helped to cluster the conversation around themes and topics relevant to individual participants.

Could these be combined - ie. technology that supports meaning-making within sub-networks?

How can learners create small sub-communities, which ideally can last beyond the time-limits of a course? What facilitates this, and what inhibits it? (Is it mainly the experience of traditional schooling?)

Although Web 3.0 technologies are expected to help individuals sort through the volume of new knowledge, they depend on the availability of knowledge in a format that they can process. MOOCs, on the other hand, tap into social networks of personal knowledge. Even if no individual can maintain currency with the entirety of a field of knowledge, a sufficiently large group of people can do so collectively.

“Knowing that” in this context includes a process of “knowing how” to create and maintain a network of people that can be tapped when needed to contribute to address a knowledge deficiency or contribute to a knowledge advance.

The ability to work with current digital tools to connect fragmented, diffuse, and distributed knowledge nodes, both human and artifactual, is perhaps the most important literacy that the MOOC environment rewards. Developing one's personal knowledge and presenting it through a coherent reflection or contribution, whether by means of blog posts, concept maps, video or another tool, is a high-level digital literacy.

These are underwritten by the ability to quickly scan and filter through potentially vast amounts of other people’s work in order to be able to find the work that can most challenge/complement one's own work.

The patterns of participation (generally high early in the course, with the development of sub-networks, and gradual tapering of activity) present a research agenda that may provide critical insight into how teaching and learning should be conducted online, regardless of number of participants.

We are refining our pedagogical approach and getting a better sense of when instructors should be most active.

The fact that courses are open to anyone, with no pre-filtering, as well as the lack of economic commitment, means much higher drop-rates. Not necessarily a bad thing.

It has become quite clear to me that understanding how social interactions in networks scale is critical to understanding the future of education.

Gutenberg permitted content to scale. Today’s web permits social interactions to scale. I can think of very few areas of research that will have a more dramatic impact on education in the next decade.

In many respects a MOOC parallels a traditional network of scientists and researchers with the exceptions that its membership is much more open, potentially much larger, and it is much more flexible in its potential to take up and respond to issues, questions, and problems on an ad-hoc basis.

Connectedness amplifies knowledge and knowledge’s potential. In education, content can easily be produced: it’s important but has limited economic value. Lectures also have limited value, as they’re easy to record and to duplicate. Teaching – as done in most universities – can be duplicated. Learning, on the other hand, can’t be duplicated.

Learning is personal, and has to occur one learner at a time. The support needed for learners to learn is a critical value point.

Many of the MOOCs are run by leaders in their fields, who are able to attract and generate enthusiasm among a large number of students. However, as the topic-areas for MOOCs expand, we'll have to deal with the fact that the top experts in a field aren't necessarily the top educators/facilitators. Perhaps subject experts can work with “MOOC experts” in facilitating courses.