National Institute for Digital Learning good reads from 2019 – notes from the reading group

Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review by Sarah R Lambert (read by Suzi Wells)

This study is a large literature review looking at both empirical research and practitioner guidance around using MOOCs and other open (as in free) learning to promote student equity and social inclusion. The study starts from 2014 because that’s the second wave of MOOCs, where more stable and sustainable practice begins to emerge.

The aims of the MOOCs were broken into two broad areas: those focused on student equity (making education fairer for tertiary learners and those preparing to enrol in HE) – this was the most common aim; and those who sought to improve social inclusion (education of non-award holders & lifelong learners). The literature was predominantly from US, UK, Australia, but they were only studying literature – possibly unsurprisingly for articles written in English. There was a near 50/50 split between empirical research and policy/practice recommendations, and the studies focused slightly more on MOOCs than on other other open learning. One notable finding was that the success rate (among published studies at least) was high – more often than not they met or exceeded their aims.

Lambert includes lots of useful detail about factors that may have led to successful projects. MOOC developers should learn about their learners and make content relevant and relatable to them. Successful projects often had community partners involved in the design, delivery & support – in particular, initiatives with large cohorts (~100) that were very successful all had this. Designing for the learners meant things like: designing for mobile-only and offline access, teaching people in their own language (or at least providing mother-tongue facilitation) and, where relevant, mixing practitioners with academics in the content.

Facilitating and support the learning was also key to success. Local study groups or face-to-face workshops were used by some projects to provide localisation and contextualisation. Facilitators would ideally be drawn from existing community networks.

A related point was to design content from scratch – recycling existing HE materials was not as successful. This should be done in an interdisciplinary team and/or community partnership. Being driven entirely by an IT or digital education team was an indicator that a project would not meet its aims. Projects need technical expertise but education and/or widening participation too. Open as is free-to-use is fine, licence didn’t seem to have an impact.

In short:

  • Work with the people you intend to benefit.
  • Create, don’t recycle.
  • Don’t expect the materials to stand by themselves.

If you’re interested in social justice through open learning, think OU not OERs.

What does the ‘Postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research and practice by Jeremy Knox (read by Suzanne Collins)

This article explores the idea of what ‘post-digital’ education means, specifically thinking about human-technology relationships. It begins with an analysis of the term post-digital’, embracing the perspective of ‘post’ as a critical appraisal of the understanding of digital rather than simply meaning a different stage, after, the digital. This initial analysis is worth a read, but not my main focus for this reading group so here I’ll jump straight to the main discussion, which is based on three critical perspectives on digital in education.

The first is “Digital as Capital”. Here, Knox talks about the commercialisation and capitalisation of digital platforms, such as social media. This platform model is increasingly based on the commodification of data, and so inevitably students/teachers/learners become seen as something which can be analysed (eg learning analytics), or something under surveillance. If surveillance is equated to recognition, this leads to further (perhaps troubling?) implications. Do you need to be seen to be counted as a learner? Is learning always visible? Does this move away from the idea of the web and digital being ‘social constructivist’?

Secondly, Knox looks at “Digital as Policy”. This (for me) slightly more familiar ground discusses the idea that ‘digital’ education is no longer as separate or distinct from ‘education’ as it once was. In a ‘post-digital’ understanding, it is in fact mainstream rather than alternative or progressive. The digital in education, however, often manifests as metrification in governance – eg schools are searchable in rankings based on algorithms. In this sense, ‘digital education’ moves away from ‘classroom gadgets’ (as Knox puts it) and sees it as something intrinsic and embedded in policy, with strategic influence.

Lastly, he discusses “Digital as Material”, which focuses on surfacing the hidden material dimensions of a sector which was often seen as ‘virtual’ and therefore ‘intangible’. The tangible, material aspects of digital education include devices, servers, and other physical elements which require manual labour and material resources. On one hand there is efficiency, but on the other there is always labour. As education, particularly digital education, often comes from a sense of social egalitarianism and social justice, this is a troubling realisation, and one which lead to a rethink in the way digital education is positioned in a post-digital perspective.

In conclusion, Knox suggests that ‘post-digital’ should be understood as a ‘holding to account of the many assumptions associated with digital technology’, which I feel sums up his argument and is probably something we should try and do more of regardless of whether we’re a ‘digital’ or ‘post-digital’ education office.

What’s the problem with learning analytics? by Neil Selwyn (read by Michael Marcinkowski)

For this last session I read Neil Selwyn’s ‘What’s the Problem with Learning Analytics’ from the Journal of Learning Analytics. Appearing in a journal published by the Society for Learning Analytics Research, Selwyn’s socio-technical approach toward the analysis of learning analytics was a welcome, if somewhat predictable, take on a field that too often seems to find itself somewhat myopically digging for solution to its own narrow set of questions.

Setting learning analytics within a larger social, cultural, and economic field of analysis, Selwyn lays out an orderly account of a number of critical concerns, organized around the implications and values present in learning analytics.

Selwyn lists these consequences of learning analytics as areas to be questioned:

  1. A reduced understanding of education: instead of a holistic view of education it is reduced to a simple numerical metric.
  2. Ignoring the broader social contexts of education: there is a danger that by limiting the understanding of education that we ignore important contextual factors affecting education.
  3. Reducing students’ and teachers’ capacity for informed decision-making: the results of learning analytics comes to overtake other types of decision making.
  4. A means of surveillance rather than support: in their use, learning analytics can have more punitive rather than pedagogical implications.
  5. A source of performativity: students and teachers each begin to focus on achieving results that can be measured by analytics rather than other measures of learning.
  6. Disadvantaging a large number of people: like any data driven system, decisions about winners and losers can be unintentionally baked into the system.
  7. Servicing institutional rather than individual interests: the analytics has more direct benefit for educational institutions and analytic providers than it does for students.

He goes on to list several questionable values embedded in learning analytics:

  1. A blind faith in data: There is a risk that there is a contemporary over-valuation of the importance of data.
  2. Concerns over the data economy: What are the implications when student data is monetized by companies?
  3. The limits of free choice and individual agency: Does a reliance on analytic data remove the ability of students and educators to have a say in their education?
  4. An implicit techno-idealism: Part of leaning analytics is a belief in the benefits of the impacts of technology.

Toward this, Selwyn proposes a few broad areas for change designed to improve learning analytics’ standing within a wider field of concern:

  1. Rethink the design of learning analytics: allow for more transparency and customization for students.
  2. Rethink the economics of learning analytics: give students ownership of their data.
  3. Rethink the governance of learning analytics: establish regulatory oversite for student data.
  4. A better public understanding of learning analytics: educate the wider public of the ethical implications of the application of learning analytics to student data.

Overall, Selwyn’s main point remains the most valuable: the idea of learning analytics should be examined within the full constellation of social and cultural structures within which it is embedded. Like any form of data analytics, learning analytics does not exist as a perfect guide to any action, and the insights that are generated by it need to be understood as only partial and implicated by the mechanisms designed to generate the data. In the end, Selwyn’s account is a helpful one — it is useful to have such critical voices welcomed into SOLAR — but the level at which he casts his recommendations remains too broad for anything other than a starting point. Setting clear policy goals and fostering a broad understanding of learning analytics are hopeful external changes that can be made to the context within which learning analytics is used, but in the end, what is necessary is for those working in the field of learning analytics who are constructing systems of data generation and analysis to alter the approaches that they take, both in the ‘ownership’ and interpretation of student data. This enforces the need for how we understand what ‘data’ is and how we think about using it to change. Following Selwyn, the most important change might be to re-evaluate the ontological constitution of data and our connection to it, coming to understand it not as something distinct from students’ education, but an integral part of it.

Valuing technology-enhanced academic conferences for continuing professional development. A systematic literature. Professional Development in Education by Maria Spilker (read by Naomi Beckett )

This literature review gives an analysis of the different approaches taken to enhance academic conferences technologically for continued professional development. Although there have been advances and new practices emerging, a definite coherent approach was lacking. Conferences were being evaluated in specific ways that were not considering all sides.

‘Continued professional development for academics is critical in times of increased speed and innovation, and this intensifies the responsibilities of academics.’ 

This makes it more important to ensure when academics come together at a conference, there is a systematic approach to look at what they should be getting out of the time spent there. The paper suggests this is something that needs to be looked out when first starting to plan a conference, what are the values?

The paper talks about developing different learning experiences at a conference to engage staff and build their professional development. There is often little time for reflection and the paper suggests looking at more ways to include this. Using technology is an example of a way this could be done. Engagement on Twitter for example gives users another channel to discuss and network, and this takes them away from the normal traditional conference formats.  Making more conferences online also gives users the opportunities to reach out to further networks.

The paper mentions their Value Creation Network, looking at what values we should be taking out of conferences. These include, immediate value, potential value, applied value, realised value, and re-framing value. Looking at these to begin with is a good start to thinking about how we can frame academic conferences, so delegates get the most use out of the time spent there, and work on their own professional development too.

We asked teenagers what adults are missing about technology. This was the best response by Taylor Fang (read by Paddy Uglow)

Some thoughts I took away:

  • Traditionally a “screen” was a thing to hide or protect, and to aid privacy. Now it’s very much the opposite.
  • Has society changed so much that social media is the only place that young people can express themselves and build a picture of who they are and what their place is in the world?
  • Adults have a duty to help young people find other ways to show who they are to the world (and the subsequent reflection back to themself)
  • Digital = data = monetisation: everything young people do online goes into a money-making system which doesn’t have their benefit as its primary goal.
  • Young people are growing up in a world where their importance and value is quantified by stats, likes, shares etc, and all these numbers demonstrate to them that they’re less important than other people, and encourages desperate measures to improve their metrics.
  • Does a meal/holiday/party/etc really exist unless it’s been published and Liked?
  • Does the same apply to Learning Analytics? Are some of the most useful learning experiences those which don’t have a definition or a grade?

Suggested reading

Video Case Study: Distance Library Skills Workshop and Induction with Collaborate

In this short video case study, Angela Joyce (Subject Librarian) and Dr Janet Orchard (School of Education) discuss their attempts to deliver Library Skills workshops to students at a partner institution in Hong Kong. Sometimes when trying new technologies things can go wrong, but with a bit of planning it’s OK to fail. Learning from the experience can help to make subsequent attempts a success.

Read more: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/digital-education/ideas/all/case-study-distance-library-skills-workshop-and-induction-with-collaborate/

Online communities – notes from the reading group

Amy read Professors share ideas for building community in online courses. The over-arching narrative of this piece was that ‘humanizing learning’ was the most effective was to build online learning communities, which occurs when students connect on a emotional and social level when engaging with the community. The author, Sharon O’Malley, suggest six methods for achieving this:

  1. Let students get to know you – instructors need to present themselves as ‘real people’ – this can be done by appearing goofy or telling genuine anecdotes in videos, for example. Students should also be encouraged to reveal their non-academic lives, in order for others to feel more like they know them personally, rather than just in the learning context
  2. Incorporating video and audio resources and feedback
  3. Meet in real time – students can talk to each other in real time and make instant connections
  4. Work in small groups – students get connected with others in their group – instead of feeling like they’re in a class of fifty, they feel they are in a class of 5, 10 etc.
  5. Require constant interaction – group projects and collaborative writing assignments force students to engage with each other out of the session
  6. Rise to the challenge – building community takes time – it takes planning and experimentation. Stick with it if it doesn’t immediately work!

Roger introduced a Building learning communities card activity. This is an activity from QAA Scotland, designed to stimulate discussion about what helps an effective learning community. The activity cards suggest the following factors:

  • Clearly defined and inclusive values
  • A clearly articulated and shared purpose
  • Clearly articulated and shared purpose goals
  • Active and vibrant interaction
  • Owned and managed by its people
  • Dedicated structure
  • Collaboration
  • Adequate and appropriate support
  • Understood and respected expectations
  • Adequate and appropriate resources
  • Built in evaluation

The instructions ask the group to consider which of these are essential and which are “nice to haves”.   The activity was certainly effective in stimulating discussion in reading group.]

Suzi watched Building Community: A Conversation with Dave Cormier – a recording of an edX webinar from 2014 – video. Here Cormier, who coined the term MOOC, talks to edX about how they could and should use online learning communities.

Cormier talks about four models of learning that you could scale up online:

  • One-to-one (adaptive learning, tutoring on skype?)
  • One-to-many (video lectures on MOOCs)
  • Cooperative learning: many-to-many, all working on the same thing
  • Collaborative learning: many-to-many, shared interest but each with own project

Collaborative learning is the one which he thinks is particularly – perhaps only – served by online communities. The real life equivalent being chaos, or maybe conferences (which, arguably, don’t work well for learning).

He draws the distinction between mastery learning (where skills can be ticked off a list as you progress) and complexity. Communities are not a particularly useful tool for mastery, or for checking who has learnt what. They are much better suited for complexity. This seemed to echo discussions we’d had about the difference between using gamification and using playfulness in learning – gamification being more for mastery, playfulness for complexity.

Cormier offers some tips on building a successful community.

  • A community should have, should move people towards building, shared values and a shared language.
  • Drive participation by having a famous person (but this can become one-to-many) or by asking annoying questions that people can’t resist engaging with (eg “how do we recognise cheating as a valuable part of education?”).
  • Shape participation by assigning roles to people and having course leader presence to set the tone.
  • Give people ways to get to know each other and make connections: recognising who people are and recognising aspects of yourself in them.

His view on evaluation and measuring success might be more specific to the MOOC context. He suggests borrowing techniques from advertising to demonstrate their value (but he doesn’t give details). The outcomes he suggests you might hope for are things like building more interest in your research area, or building the brand of an academic / department / institution.

He also asks some interesting questions. About the authenticity of work we give to students – how will their work persist? Can it be right that so much of students work is destined to be thrown away? About life beyond the community – how will the community persist? Communities are emotional – you shouldn’t just pull the plug at the end.

Lots of this is challenging in an educational context. For instance, communities take time to build but we generally work with units that last for a teaching block at most. Our online Bristol Futures courses only last four weeks. I wonder if this is to do with setting expectations. Perhaps we need thin and thick communities: the thin communities being time-bound but with much more scaffolding and a narrower purpose, the thick communities being more what Cormier is talking about here.

I also read The year we wanted the internet to be smaller (on the growth of niche communities in 2017) and 11 tips for building an engaged online community (practical advice aimed at NGOs). Both are interesting in their own right and worth a read. In both the idea of shared values, shared language and a sense of purpose came up. They also talk also recognition: communities as a place where you find “your people”. This resonates with my positive experiences of online communities but is, again, challenging in an education context. As Suzanne pointed out I think – if the tone and being among “your people” is important you must be able to walk out and find something different if you don’t feel comfortable. And it may be far better that you work with people who aren’t just  “your people”, or at least who don’t start that way.

Suggested reading

Online communities in education

From other sectors

Education communities – articles that are 10+ years old

Suggested listening

MOOCs: what have we learnt? – notes from the reading group

Steve read HEA: Liberating learning: experiences of MOOCs

MOOCs are increasing in popularity. Will this continue? Registrations, drop outs, completions. Will they disrupt HE?

10-person sample size, people who completed Southampton MOOC. Want to understand motivations, opportunities, problems. Discussed findings with five academics who taught/led it. Aware of small scale, so no recommendations – but reflections and suggestions.

Themes from findings:
1 Flexible, fascinating and free – can fit into lives, customise pace, no financial commitment.
2 Feeling part of something – social & international aspect, even for passive ‘lurkers’
3 Ways of learning – prefer sequential over dipping in/out.
4 A bit of proof? – cost sensitivity to purchasing accreditation. Only 1 wanted this.

Four-quadrant model for MOOC engagement, suggests stuff to include. Two axes:
personal enjoyment vs work/education
studying alone vs social learning

Steve also read What are MOOCs Good For?

MOOC boom and bust? High-profile implementation at San Jose failed, inc backlash from academics. General completion/dropout rate  (SB: do we care about drop outs? Most are window shoppers). Experiments and options/opportunities are still expanding. In summary, more data needed but need to moderate expectations – still a place for innovation, also integrating with traditional teaching – take best bits of both?

Roger read: Practical Guidance from MOOC Research: Students Learn by Doing

This is one of a series of blog posts by Justin Reich, who is Executive Director of the Teaching Systems lab at MIT, which ” investigates the complex, technology-mediated classrooms of the future and the systems we need to develop to prepare teachers for those classrooms.”
In this post from July 2015, Justin’s main point is that when developing MOOCs it is better for student learning to focus on development of interactive activities as opposed to high production videos.  He mentions particularly the value of formative peer assessment, synchronous online discussion and simulations “that create learning experiences that students may not have in other contexts”.
If making videos then focus on the early parts of the course, as watching tends to drop off later in courses. There is some evidence that students prefer Khan academy type screencasts with pen animations rather than talking over slides.

Suzi read Why there are so many video lectures in online learning, and why there probably shouldn’t be

The article argues that video is expensive, particularly if you aim for higher production values (which many people do). Their methodology was a literature review, interviews with experts, and studying the use of video in over 20 MOOCs. There’s no evidence that video does (or doesn’t) work as a learning tool, and little or none that high production values add much. Learners wrongly self-report that they learn well from video (cf the study of physics videos – Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions

They argue that people should:

  • think twice before using video
  • use video where it really does add value (virtual field trips, creating rapport, manipulating time and space, telling stories, motivating learners, showcasing historical footage, conducting demonstrations, visual juxtaposition)
  • focus on media-literacy for the content experts and DIY approaches (eg filming on mobile phones)

Suzi also read 10 ways MOOCs have forced universities into a rethink

Broadly an argument that MOOCs are changing HE. MOOCs have given universities the impetus to experiment with pedagogy (notably, fewer lectures), assessment, accreditation, and course structure. They have made more common to think in terms of a digital education strategy. They are also disrupting universities: HEIs are no longer the only providers of HE and cheaper degrees are becoming available. They’ve highlighted an unmet demand (for something like evening classes?) and particularly in vocational and practical subjects. Clark talks about global networks of universities being like airline consortia – the passenger buys one ticket but makes their journey over several airlines.

Mike read  ‘7 ways to make MOOCs Sticky’, a blog post by Donald Clark and also ‘Bringing the Social back to MOOCs’ by Todd Bryant in an EduCause review.

The former looked at design to keep a MOOC audience coming back.  The latter looked at how MOOCs can encompass social learning (rather than just provide content). A point of contention between the two is the importance of social learning – overemphasised if you believe Clark and missing from many MOOCs if you believe Todd.

Clark, drawing on MOOC data from Derby’s Dementia MOOC, listed 7 ways to retain learners. For me, his seven points divide into three related areas, audience, structure and the value of social. He framed the discussion in the recognition that we cannot apply metrics from campus courses to things that are free, open and massive  courses. Clark is often a provocative commentator though, and his downplaying of the social is interesting.

An overarching theme of Clark’s post is audience sensitivity, though at times the audience he is most sensitive to seems to be himself. In my experience, this is a tough challenge for MOOCs. To Clark this is about not treating MOOC learners like undergraduates who are ‘physically and psychologically at University’. He rightly states they have different needs and interests. As someone who has helped design MOOCs, it is hard to make something that is all things to all people, and often it is about providing a range of activities, levels and opportunities for learners to engage.

Related to audience sensitivity, Clark sees a value in keeping MOOCs shorter (definitely wise), modular (allowing people to dip into bits), with less reliance on a weekly structure and coherent whole. This is maybe less about keeping learners, and more about allowing them to get what they want from parts of a course. It would be great to come up with ways to evaluate MOOCs for learners who want to take bits of courses. Post-course surveys are self-selecting and largely made up of completers. It is also a tough design challenge to appeal to such learners whilst also trying to deliver depth and growth through a course. Clark is involved in some companies who develop adaptive learning systems, perhaps reflecting a similar philosophy. Adaptive approaches may provide some answers in the future.

Clark is also is not a fan of the weekly structure, at least in terms of following through with a cohort. I think many learners like both the structure and the social, and these is are the main differentiating factors for MOOCs that mean they are not just a set of online materials. Many learners find the event driven, weekly structure motivating, and it is event many enjoy and learn the social element of MOOCs more than the content. I was always keen to draw out the social elements, to give learners the chance to contribute to the course and learn from each other.  Clark is somewhat scathing of social constructivism and the kind of learning emphasised in C-MOOCs.

This is in contrast to Bryant’s article. For Bryant, too many MOOCs are ‘x-MOOCs’ – largely about content and neglecting the social.  Interestingly, he does cite features of EdX and Coursera that have the potential to change this by allowing learners to work in groups and buddy up during courses. We would have really valued such features when I was working on MOOC about Enterprise. FutureLearn is not currently well equipped in this area.  He goes on to explore other ways of helping people collaborate off platform through user groups and crowd sourcing/ knowledge building tools. This would work well for some, but doubtless exclude others. He considers simulations, virtual worlds and ‘alternate reality games’ – simulations played in the real world. These could all play a role, but for me, alongside a core MOOC structure. Bryant sees MOOCs as a potential ‘bridge between open content and collaborative learning’. I suspect Bryant and Clark would value very different kinds of MOOC. Should we try to appeal to both extremes (and all in between) or pitch the MOOC at a particular audience? Probably the latter, but it still isn’t easy.

#EDCMooc – the view from the other side

By Hilary Griffiths

Now the dust has settled I thought it might be useful to post some thoughts on our EDCMOOC experience. Once a week educational technologists, students and academics had the opportunity to meet for a coffee, and to reflect on their experience of participating in a MOOC – these are some of the thoughts expressed during those meetings.

Only two or three of the group had participated in a MOOC before so it’s perhaps unsurprising that the most common reason for participation cited in the first meeting was curiosity – what exactly is it like to be a student on a MOOC?

The general impression after week 1 was one of feeling overwhelmed – both by the range of tools participants were directed to use, the percieved lack of explicit direction or course structure, and the amount of “noise” in the environment. Some participants struggled initially to make sense of how they were expected to use the tools (which were things like Facebook, Google +, and Twitter as well as in MOOC discussion fora.) One participant cited the fact that they didn’t want to have to sign up to Facebook or Twitter but through the ensuing discussion it became clear that given the number of participants you didn’t need to use all of the suggested tools, but could pick a couple you were most comfortable with and still get a good experience of the course.

It was interesting that the participants cited noise as adding to their feeling of being swamped by the MOOC – the sheer amount of information being uploaded, commented on, communicated, microblogged and hyperlinked to was overwhelming, especially if you arrived in a discussion or activity area some time after it had started.  Given the participants use a range of ways to filter and organise the information they receive in their life outside the MOOC, it telling that at least initially they did not seem to apply the same strategies within the MOOC.  Generally better ways to filter and surface activities was seen as key – along with some way of allowing late arrivals to jump in to activities  without having to wade through masses of information, for example a daily digest of key discussion board conversations to allow later arrivals to contribute to the current conversation more easily.

A concern from a current undergraduate student was the perceived lack of validation of her learning. Was she learning what she should be? Was her understanding correct? In the absence of feedback from the MOOC academics the student was relying on a validation by peer consensus in a course where a lack of academic rigour characterised many of the contributions.

My perception was that those who had the most enjoyable and engaged experience of the  MOOC engaged early and managed to form small, self supporting groups which helped reduce information overload and the lack of a present academic by filtering information, alerting group members  to things they may have missed and also offering feedback on their learning. Groups offered a way to move beyond the experience of the central discussion boards,  often characterised by a lot of posts but not a great deal of dialogue,  into an area where participants could start to develop a sense of the experience and expertise of the people they were communicating with. One benefit of the MOOC use of external social media like blogs and twitter are that these conversations can continue after the course has finished.  A final suggestion was that perhaps we should lobby for some kind of advisory service for students to consult before they sign up for a MOOC – MOOCAS anyone ?

6 very good things about MIT’s #medialabcourse MOOC

I started taking MIT’s Media Lab’s Learning Creative Learning MOOC (often referred to as #medialabcourse or LCL) at the beginning of February. It’s something I’ve done in my spare time rather than directly for work but it’s been a great experience and I wanted to reflect on what has worked so well for me.

1. Google+ communities. Google+ turns out to be really rather good for groups and group discussions. The combination of threaded discussion (with email notifications of responses) and micro-blogging type front-page (making it easy to scan through new posts) has certainly promoted impressively engaging and lively discussion. It’s even (and I can’t believe I’m saying this about a Google product) nice to look at.

2. Small groups. People who enrolled in time were placed into small groups, each with its own email list, and each encouraged to set up its own Google+ group. These small groups (my own included) have largely petered-out – but others have survived, often by picking up refugees from the less active groups, and I joined one of those. They provide a safer, less public, arena for discussion – especially for those people who are perhaps less confident or for material that doesn’t seem important / relevant / polished enough to share with the world.

3.Openness. LCL was designed to be almost entirely open, based on P2PU’s mechanical MOOC. Course reading is published on a public website and the main community is an open Google+ group. Weekly emails are sent out to remind people about this week’s activity and reading. Even with the small groups, I get the impression it’s those who left their Google+ communities as open who have survived because they could pick up new members. As well as being a Good Thing, this openness helps to make it easier to navigate the course, and to access the materials from a range of computers and devices.

4. Variety. Each week there are suggested readings, an activity, and further resources. There’s also a video panel discussion, and of course there’s continuous activity and discussion on the Google+ community. Early on the course, the course leaders stated explicitly that people should engage with what they can / what interests them and not feel they have to do everything. The variety of tasks and materials (some of the “readings” are short videos) make it possible to stay engaged even when you have little time to spare.

5. Events. There are live-broadcast panel discussion each week, directly relating to the week’s reading and activity. The video stream for these is embedded within a chat forum so that you can chat with your fellow students while you watch, and submit questions for the Q&A section at the end. These broadcasts feel very personal and inclusive, they are relaxed and conversational in tone. Course moderators join the chat rooms – providing helpful information, support with technical issues, and (maybe more than anything else) a real sense that the online participants do matter. In terms of a teaching device, I’m not sure how well they work – I find myself picking up fragments of the video and fragments of the chat and not properly engaging in either. But they can be useful place to reflect on and refine my ideas and they help give the course a nice pace.

6. Enthusiasm. Mitch Resnik, Natalie Rusk, and the rest of the course team exude enthusiasm for their subject, excitement about the course, and an openness that makes you feel like a real student. They seem friendly and genuinely interested in what online participants are saying. I think their attitude sets the tone for the community as a whole.

Reading group notes: MOOCs

Characteristics of MOOCs (from Wikipedia) – (Roger) – participants distributed, course materials available on the web, built on a connectivist approach, typically free but may charge for accreditation, typical components might be a weekly presentation, discussion questions, suggested further resources, personal reflection and sharing of resources .  I also tried registering for Stephen Downes Change. Mooc.ca– and was interested that the 4 types of activity suggested for the course reflect quite well important aspects of the way I work : these are 1. aggregate , 2. remix  3. re-purpose and 4. feed forward

Disrupting College, Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, 2011 (Suzi) – Policy paper arguing that we are in for a massive change (a disruption) in the way HE works and that (amongst other things) the only way for existing institutions to take advantage of this is to create autonomous business units to work in this area.

What Can We Learn From Stanford University’s Free Online Computer Science Courses?, Seb Schmoller, 2011 (Suzi) – Seb’s experiences on the Stanford AI course and his thoughts about what this means for the sector. Stanford will be learning a lot and getting well ahead of the game by running these courses. Other institutions will not be able to get their numbers – collaboration may be the only way to compete.

Suggested reading