During the course of a research study that Jenny Mackness and I are doing, we have been thinking about cMOOCs. What have been the subjects and purposes of the various courses that might style themselves as cMOOCs? Who does cMOOCs and why?
It’s difficult to say what a MOOC is – apart from it being a Massive Open Online Course.. Not all examples of MOOCs are Massive, they can see Open as being about open to join, open to the web, they are usually Online though participants may have local meetups, and they usually have some affinity with the idea of a Course, in that people may learn over a more less fixed period and a teacher might show up from time to time. Dominik Lukes has come up with an undefinition of MOOC as family resemblance.
So if that’s what a MOOC isn’t, then what is a cMOOC? cMOOC is now used to refer to connectivist MOOC family relations of CCK08, the original MOOC Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, run by George Siemens and Stephen Downes.
So if you are or have been a convenor or participant in a cMOOC, can you help by checking, amending, extending or commenting on the information we have gathered so far? This table can’t be completed or fully representative but we would like to get a good enough picture of the short history of cMOOCs – particularly who does cMOOCs and why they do them?
Link to Google Doc http://bit.ly/cmooctable – it’s probably easier to edit the table through this link than the embedded document below.
Research into complex phenomena such as networks of people and complex, connected technologies will almost certainly involve people working together who have different ways of seeing the world, and different ideas about what and how we humans and non-humans can know. I think that such research is needed to help us make decisions if we are to shape technologies, services, systems, even as they shape us.
On Saturday, I watched a recording of Stephen’s presentation on MOOC Research at Tübingen, Germany. I surprised myself with my very mixed reaction to what he said – agreement, disagreement but it certainly made me think. I really appreciate that Stephen Downes lays out so clearly what his thinking is even if I don’t always understand what he means; and sometimes when I do understand him, I don’t agree with him. I am glad he is in my learning network, and I think on the whole I probably agree with him more often than I disagree with him.
Anyway, I just wanted to share some of thoughts that his presentation provoked for me..
Stephen has had quite a lot to say about theory in this and recent writings, and I was very interested in the idea that theory is already embedded in our interpretation of experience. I wonder how that relates to our everyday theorising about the world around us that seems to me to be both conscious and unconscious. For me, theories (from others’ writing and research) can be very useful, and they can help me (re-)evaluate past/current experience. So I do think that many theories are applied in context, especially ones that relate to the complex phenomena that I already mentioned.
I explored the possible use of theories and approaches in research and practice in a paper I wrote for IRRODL that I hope illustrates how what we are trying to achieve and the context in which we are making our efforts can influence both the theory and methodology we might use (see Table 2).
Stephen spoke about research methodology(ies) and proposed a model that was somehow common to research in general, but different to what he does. I wanted to challenge this as it seemed to me that he was posing the scientific model of research that can be useful, but for me is incomplete on its own in the complex research that is my concern. So technology-driven services can generate useful ‘big data’ as people use them but the rich picture of people’s experience requires a bit more work to tease out relevant data that can enlighten us about users’/ learners’ experiences and outcomes. For me, this is part of the tendency of education technology research towards provider-centric (that concentrates on the resources and environments that are provided) rather than learner-centric research (that takes the perspective of the learner, looking across their experiences and use of technology). In my own home discipline of Information Systems, there is an extensive resource on Qualitative Research that highlights many approaches eg Action Research, Ethnography that can contribute to these richer perspectives. These approaches do not rely on hypotheses, proof or refutation.
A criticism of research that Stephen made was that it tends to find what it is looking for. This is a very valid potential criticism but I would claim that a combination of planning and flexibility can guard against this. An interesting example is from the PhD of Cristina Costa where in order to deal with the power relations and conflicts that emerged from the first two stages of analysis, she enrolled the theory of Pierre Bourdieu to help understand the data that confronted her. I think that this is an excellent example of how, with a flexible approach, plans that are useful to guide a research study can be changed to accommodate the unexpected and to generate the richest understanding possible.
In April, I saw a really lovely example of the value of plans that can’t anticipate the context in which they will be completed when I visited La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, due to be completed in 2026. Gaudi started his plans for the Basilica in 1893, died in 1926 yet today people are working to complete his vision with the help of technology of which he knew nothing.
I would really like to tease out what are Stephen’s assumptions in his talk – but of, course I don’t really know what those are, he would have to help me here. I know it would help me to explore my initial thinking provoked by his talk. Here are some areas where I wonder what his assumptions might be:
In talking about learning theories, Stephen Downes poses theories as explaining why learning occurs. I wondered if he thinks that a theory can generate the explanation (which feels a bit like prediction) or that some theories might help generate explanations that are more or less plausible depending on the context in which they are applied.
Stephen describes how he conducts his research in MOOCS – I wonder how he works (cooperates?) with others and how their research informs each other’s contributions.
I wonder if Stephen against methodology (flexible and open to change) or just against rigid method.
In between first watching Stephen’s presentation and writing this, I have been fortunate enough to have an exchange with Jenny Mackness and to have watched George Veletsianos’s keynote. Both were very useful – not implying sameness of views, of course. So thanks to all three of you.
@Stephen I think you make a valuable distinction in your first paragraph between learning by doing and DIY learning that is useful to anyone learning or trying to help others learn.
I found myself wondering why Anya Kemenetz didn’t refer to the provenance of the term Edupunk or FWIW cited OLDaily as a resource but then I checked out the comments thread here and began to think that maybe Anya would be damned if she did try to acknowledge the ‘origins’ of Edupunk just as she has been damned for not doing so.
I think Ed Webb made a good point on the same comments thread.
Ed Webb says:
February 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm I can’t be doing with all this movement theology. The spirit of the thing seems to be the most important. If it’s no fun any more, if the thrill is gone, then the breakup makes sense. Also, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkdqCTcDkbc
I agree with @David that it is quite a useful booklet. I would think that if I directed two resources – Anya’s booklet and your Future of Online Learning article- to new students thinking about how be effective learners in a changing sociotech landscape, they would find hers much more useful. Whereas learners researching online learning would find yours useful at a much deeper level.
As an idea Edupunk is clearly inspirational and motivating but it’s not a completely fixed thing where you need to check all the boxes. If it were, you couldn’t really ‘claim’ your (excellent) MOOCs as part of it. I remember in CCK08, you and George clearly positioned yourselves on occasions as ‘teachers’ teaching a ‘theory’ despite the rhetoric of teaching by modelling practice
Being a teacher myself I felt a mixture of sympathy and amusement when you were moved to reply to a participant:
“I’m sorry to be snippy – but I’m getting very tired of students in this course saying “I disagree” or “You’re wrong” without giving me even the faintest clue about what it is that seems wrong much less concrete evidence that they’ve read the work they’re disagreeing with).
This isn’t a confessional course. You do not need to profess your faith one way or another. I don’t care whether or not you agreee or disagree with me or anyone else. What I do care about is that you have understood the theory sufficiently as to have some reason for disagreeing.” http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=956#p5802 (scroll down)
What I suspect is at the bottom of this is captured in @David’s last 2 paras how do we critique ideas and practice of learning (like MOOCs , connectivism and Edupunk) in this changing socio-technical landscape. As I commented here , I don’t find the occasionally tetchy tone very helpful. Also, I think we should guard against the premature stabilisation of ideas .
Stephen’s post has also been valuable to my networked learning as it has helped me to find David Jenning’s blog – so thanks to both of you for that.