Re: [eduMOOC] Digest for edumooc@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 2 Topics
Scott Johnson
My major objection to Stanford declaring their AI course a MOOC is that in my gut it doesn't feel open. And yes, my definition of "open" is entirely unresolved.
For sure it is a learning opportunity and it comes with approval of the Stanford brand--what could be better? But where do I fit here? What part of me as a student is taken into account beyond a space on the application form to enter my name? Is it self-centred to look into the window of this course and not see my reflection? How much of myself do I have to give up to be a sparkling Stanford University Course Attendance Success Module?
In the background I'm hearing "But this is real education designed by respected leaders in the field and surely they can finally bring this MOOC thing in off the range where we can study it in a rational and deliberate manner. Plus we'll finally have something to put on our resume for all the hard we do here." I even partially believe this, these are smart people and this is an institution that even a MOOC rat like myself can't help but admire. If it only didn't feel so much like walking backwards to the future...
In "Opening Up Education" chapter 2 Designing Open Educational Technology David Kahle
(index here < http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11309&mode=toc >) reminds us that open courses can be designed to avoid some of the separation of student from their own learning that I feel is the largest fault in traditional educational models:
<"...many of our most popular learning management systems
accommodate only highly generalized educational contexts where the
primary design goal is the efficient distribution of content rather than
student engagement with and exploration of new material. Such technologies
limit how content is organized around complex concepts, how
information is presented, and the degree to which students may interact
with instructional material. Restricting access to information, limiting
engagement and participation, and providing learners and instructors
with little control over the learning activity, materials, or processes
creates a demotivating experience. It is this condition that the open
technology design framework attempts to address.">
Oh, and the fact that graduate students in education can strategize a way to make this course open where it might be closed just doesn't count. Is the future of school to have only people who are good at school in school?
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/edumooc/topics
- Week Seven; Collaboratives, Collectives and Clouds [1 Update]
- Need to redefine what a MOOC is? [2 Updates]
Anil <aple...@gmail.com> Aug 08 08:49AM -0700 ^
Hi friends,
I think, for a good start of our seventh weekly discussions, we have
to discuss the query “How does a collaborative work differ from a
collective work? “
My rough idea is that a collaborative work means working together to
achieve a common goal. Whereas a collective work need not necessarily
maintain a common goal, instead, most often, it will be based on some
general interest in a common domain. Each participant can work for his/
her individual goal with respect to the common domain.
Your thoughts?
Warm regards
Anil
http://www.apletters.blogspot.com
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasad
Osvaldo Rodriguez <cor...@yahoo.com> Aug 08 03:57AM -0700 ^
I totally agree with Scott in all his comments.
With respect to AI Stanford, MOOC or not MOOC, we need to understand how to handle open massive technical courses and (if allowed by organizers) how much learners interaction appears.
As it is announced I agree with Scott there are little chances that it will evolve in a MOOC as described in the Educause papers by Siemens and Cormier.
It certainly is a step beyond the MIT Open Courseware and other similar initiatives. If an OER-like alternative to the US$114 book could be found the step would be bigger.
Osvaldo
C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ
cor...@yahoo.com
________________________________
From: Scott HJ <scot...@gmail.com>
To: eduMOOC <edu...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:18 PM
Subject: [eduMOOC] Re: Need to redefine what a MOOC is?
Still disagree that the Stanford course is a MOOC. Nor will it morph
miraculously into a MOOC by backchannel discussion groups forming
around it. If we call it a course, then it seems to me rules of
curriculum demand an open declaration and valuation of discussions
somewhere in the course syllabus.
Alternately, and in agreement with Lisa, the role of openness and
design in MOOCs are still unresolved (as is just about everything else
pertaining to MOOCs). By having a MOOC that walks like a course, talks
like a course and looks like a course we may come to a better
understanding of what a MOOC actually is.
Interestingly, this thread started with a discussion on student
retention. If there is one thing about MOOCs that is a giant black
hole, it is participant attrition. Am I the only one here who feels
the tension between the virtual worship of participation coupled with
a sloppiness in attending to attendance? Where are the masses we
started with? Why so few participants in the forums? To my mind, the
biggest failure of "distance" education is the careless use of our
obligations to each other--to ignore the silence we can't help but
notice. Many of us are here because we feel at home, welcome and cared
for in this setting. Where can we go with MOOCs that hangs on to
participation?
I wonder if the structured-ness of the Stanford MOOC will make us
better at being open? Even if it isn't a MOOC;-)
Rebecca <rjh...@gmail.com> Aug 08 07:35AM -0700 ^
Hi all,
This has been a great discussion - only wish I had more time to
contribute.
I have considered defining MOOCs and really think there are two ways
to define them:
1 - Literally using each letter in the word
2 - Based upon the original intent - that is the letters of the word
plus the inclusion of connectivism.
I'm summarized my thoughts in this post:
http://rjh.goingeast.ca/2011/08/06/is-it-or-is-it-not-a-mooc-edumooc/
Now, regardless of which you believe, I do not think the Stanford
course qualifies simply because of the requirement for an expensive
textbook. In this case they have failed to offer a course that is
"open" because they have added a significant barrier to entry. I do
think there is a requirement on the hosts of an "open" course to not
include significant financial barriers (a $5 or $10 book might be
acceptable, but over $100 - you might as well be charging tuition).
Openness has many implications and requirements, and being open is
more than just allowing people to sign up for free. You also have
remove any obvious barriers to entry.
I like the idea of keeping definitions as inclusive as possible, and
since there C in MOOC is course and not connectivism, I don't think a
MOOC needs to be connectivist - that being said, I think the type of
MOOC that I'm drawn to participate in is a connectivist MOOC - as it
is the connections and not necessarily the content that keeps me
engaged.
I also don't think that a MOOC needs to be unstructured. I think that
structure (at least to some level) is a good thing. We are
undervaluing the role of the MOOC host/facilitator if we say that
MOOCs need to be 100% participant driven. The MOOC host/facilitators
often have a lot to offer in the form of helping to structure the
content / discussions in a manner that helps participants to learn. I
would not want to host a MOOC where I was not permitted to provide
some form of structure. I also think that it is those minimalist
structures that lead to participant retention - and a lack of them
that encourages participant drop-out. The challenge is finding just
the right balance to allow for participants to be creative and find
their niche without over-structuring.
Here is an interesting quote from Davis et al 2008 Engaging minds:
Changing teaching in complex times: "The rules that define complex
systems maintain a delicate balance between sufficient structure, to
limit a pool of virtually limitless possibilities, and sufficient
openness, to allow for flexible and varied responses. These rule are
not matters of 'everyone does the same thing' or 'everyone does their
own thing,' but of 'everyone participants in a joint project.'
Rephrasing teaching intentions as enabling constraints rather than
prescriptions is an important competency" (p. 193-194).
The goal of MOOC hosts/facilitators, I think, should be provide just
enough structure to allow participants to develop in-depth
conversations on the particular topic. This requires adding enough
constraints to the conversation to focus the participants - without
stifling them.
Cheers,
Rebecca
Lisa M Lane
Stanford offering it doesn't matter at all. One could create a
perfectly awful MOOC, hosted by anyone, doing anything. I don't think
the term is dependent on quality, or expense of the textbook, or
perceived usefulness, or teacher qualification.
To me (obviously, and I'm grateful to this discussion for helping me
think this through), MOOC is simply a format. Your pedagogy, host,
status, content, participation, etc. may vary.
Lisa
