Personal Blogs

Future Learn

I began my MOOC adventure by proving Jordan right and almost immediately dropped out of the first course I enrolled on.  The completion rate for most MOOCs is around 10%(Liyanagunawardena et al, 2013).  I quickly realised this course wasn’t going to meet my needs, so I left – guilt free – because I hadn’t had to pay for it.  My next enrolment was done with more care and ease via the user-friendly course menu.  I selected a course that was both relevant and challenging to me professionally.

I discovered on the first webpage 3 links to books written by the course experts, the latter two costing more than £90 each.  Could this be, as Watter's suggests, a new revenue stream for authors (Watters, 2013)?   Also on this page were directions towards printable versions of this course, which disheartened me more.  If I was hoping for a social interaction on this course, I suspected I would be disappointed.  I was.  I enjoyed the freedom to skip over areas of the course that weren’t relevant, such as how to use the library (puzzling because self-directed discovery and critical analysis was never required).  The material was presented in a cognitivist frame, with text reinforced by videos and the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out”format of assessment quizzes was clear behaviourism. 

I will continue with the course, largely because it will look good in my e-portfolio and my appraiser likes to see things like this when he ticks the box to say I’m fit to practice medicine.  I’ll learn a few facts, but my clinical practice will only really change when I use that knowledge in the social context of my community of practice.  It’s a shame I couldn’t have done that in the course and perhaps my patients would be benefitting from the learning sooner.

Ds106

In comparison to the FutureLearn MOOC, ds106 is chaotic and exciting.  My appraiser would hate it (making the devil in me love it more).   Where FutureLearn is neat and clean and easy to navigate, ds106 is rather messy and overwhelming.  FutureLearn takes you by the hand and says “don’t be afraid”: ds106 is like bungee jumping into learning.  The language of ds106 is exhilarating – terming the ongoing, open version “headless” is simply terrifying – and the dark background, red typeface and impactful graphics reinforces this.  This reflects the vibrancy of social interactions and a sense of innovation and creativity that is completely absent on FutureLearn.  Just look at ds106's innovative assignment bank and daily creative challenge it hosts on Twitter (#tdc1560).

I also realised that I felt much “safer” on ds106 than I did on FutureLearn.  In the forum I felt I could be myself, speak in my own words, admit my mistakes and learn from them. Navigating ds106 is hard work, but this somehow made me want to be part of something bigger than my own learning needs.  For now I’m in that place of legitimate peripheral participation Lave and Wenger, 1991) but even here I’ve expanded my horizons more than I did on the week I spent with FutureLearn.  I don’t yet know exactly what I what to learn on ds106 – all I know is that I want to stay and play on this MOOC. 

Which MOOC for me?

My decision is rather boring and predictable.  The answer is both.  With FutureLearn I know the investment of time and effort will be productive. I don’t need certification for my professional development, although I do have to demonstrate reflective learning in my e-portfolio.  Will it generate innovations in my practice?  Unlikely.  If I want to transform the way I do what I do and make new and exciting learning discoveries, ds106 is the way to go.  This scares me and it will no doubt scare the healthcare managers and senior clinicians more.  

MOOCs are like everything else in learning and indeed in life.  They come in many forms and it’s for the learner to use them to suit their needs and - that devil in me hates to admit it -  those of their others. 

References:

Defining Learning Objects

There is a lack of clear agreement on what the term "learning object" means (Friesen, 2003; Lamb, 2009).  Here I present 3 definitions that I have found.

1. A collection of content items, practice items and assessment items that are based on a single learning objective (Wikipedia - link to original reference not working, quote attributed to Wayne Hodgins, 1994).
2. A modular resource, usually digital and web-based that can be used and reused to support learning (Docebo)
3. Any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, reused and referenced during technology-supported learning (IEEE, 2001).
4. Polsani (2003) describes a few more.

This creates a dilemma.  If you don't agree what it is you are sharing, how can you agree to share it effectively?  Nevertheless, learning objects have been (and are still being) collected, categorised and shared - despite lacking this clarity of understanding.  According to Friesen (2003) the term "object" in this context is a technical term, originating from object-orientated programming.  I agree with his argument that this is confusing and meaningless for those of us who aren't programmers.  A seemingly simple name belies the complexity of the concept (Rehak and Mason, 2003).

The Rationale for Learning Objects

Online learning resources are expensive in terms of time and money (Downes, 2001; Lamb, 2009) so it makes sense to share them. But often these digital materials weren't written in the same code (Lamb, 2009).  The result was an expensive item that couldn't be shared, adapted or improved.  A very expensive wheel kept being reinvented.  One solution was to create repositories, where learning objects are categorised using metatags and catalogued according to rules that allowed access and sharing (Lamb, 2009).

Reuse of Learning Objects

If the learning object is to be reused (as in definitions 2 and 3 above) we have to consider certain attributes.

Granularity. 

This refers to the size of the learning object.  Not its file size, but how discrete it is and how it relates, in its own right, to the learning objective (see definition 1).  Duncan (2003) argues that the finer the granularity (that is, the smaller and more discrete it is) the more easily the learning object can be reused.  In creating an open educational resource the designer might include finely granular objects so that they can be reused.  However, there is a risk that this compromises the coherence of the whole. 

Who decides on the granularity of the learning object?  Is it the person who designs and/or delivers the educational activity or the learner who uses it?  Who owns the learning?

Context

When held in a repository, learning objects are isolated from the context in which they were designed to operate.  This means they can loose meaning.  Labels may go some way to indicating their previous use(s) but this requires some imagination on the part of the new user.  Wiley (2015) describes a "reusability paradox" whereby resources used outside of the original context compromises its educational effectiveness.  The more context, the greater the learning but the lesser the capacity for reuse.

Aggregation and Disaggregation

Repurposing learning material to adapt to new context may reclaim its authenticity and educational effectiveness (Wiley, 2015).  The ability of the learning object to be taken away, reused and repurposed in different contexts is known as aggregation/disaggregation (Rehak and Mason, 2003).  The finer the granularity, the greater the ability to aggregate and disaggregate learning objects.

The Problem with Repositories

According to Lamb (2009) the processes involved in repositing learning objects was lengthy and complex for the technologists, never mind the teachers.  Lamb (2009) argues that new technologies were easier (not to mention free) to use.  Web 2.0 technologies , such as wikis and blogs, became the new agents for the storage and sharing of learning objects.  For instance, he cites blogs as a means of asking questions and sharing good practice (Note, this is an example of connectivism in my opinion). 

Repositories tended to mimic real-world sharing and failed to account for differences in the virtual world.  Google, for example, changed the way websites are categorised, which in turn affected learning object repositories (Lamb, 2009).  Downes (2001) was proved wrong when he assumed it would be "reasonable to expect that many of the elements of resource sharing the old way will be replicated in an online environment" (no page). 

Conclusion

There's no doubt that learning objects exist, but what exactly they are is up for discussion.  Nevertheless, the sharing of educational material makes economic and educational sense.  It's how we do it that deserves attention.

References

Downes, S. (2001) ‘Learning objects: resources for distance education worldwide’, IRRODL, vol. 2, no. 1 [online], http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/ irrodl/ article/ view/ 32/ 378 (accessed 28 October 2016).

Duncan, C. (2003). "Granularization." Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning. A. Littlejohn (ed.) London: Kogan Page.

Friesen, N. (2003) ‘Three objections to learning objects and e-learning standards’ in McGreal, R. (ed.) (2004) Online Education Using Learning Objects, London, Routledge, pp. 59–70. Draft available online at http://www.learningspaces.org/ papers/ objections.html (accessed 28 March 2016).

IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) (2001) Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata Version 6.1.

Lamb, B. (2009) Who the hell is Brian Lamb? (video), Barry Dahl blog, 26 October [online], http://barrydahl.com/ 2009/ 10/ 26/ who-the-hell-is-brian-lamb/ (accessed 28 March 2016).

Rehak, D. & Mason, R. (2003). "Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects." Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning. A. Littlejohn (ed.) London: Kogan Page.

Wiley D. (2015) ‘Forgetting our History: From the Reusability Paradox to the Remix Hypothesis’ Iterating Towards Openness 15 April [Blog]. Available at opencontent.org/blog/archives/3854 (accessed 28 May 2015).

Until I began my MAODE study I hadn't considered openness in education beyond the price tag (or rather lack of it).  If it was available online (so I didn't have to take time off work) vaguely relevant to my learning needs and without charge, then I considered it open.  My colleagues were firmly of the opinion that this made it inferior to face-to-face teaching (but that's a different story). 

It was only when one of my fellow students on the H800 discussion board pointed me towards the Paris OER declaration that I realised that openness means far more than acquiring knowledge online for free. Openness incorporates the concepts of remixing, reusing and repurposing educational material - putting it out there for others to take, tinker with, remodel, improve and then give back.  It's about sharing and creating.

I decided I had to get to grips with this, so jumped at the chance to do a MOOC through a well known (and shall remain nameless) medical charity.  I duly registered and received an email from the course leader suggesting that this course wasn't for me.  I wasn't the "right" type of student.  So much for openness and inclusivity.  I persuaded the organiser to let me join - just in time as places were reaching the limit of...40.  Hardly massive.  There was nothing to remix or repurpose.  All resources were encased in intellectual property rights, with not a creative commons licence in sight.  That said, it was a great learning experience. Asynchronous discussions were lively, informative, supportive and polite.  I learnt a lot and it's changed my practice at work. 

Then I enrolled in the School for Health and Care Radicals, which comprised webcasts, Tweetchats, slideshare, pinterest...all aimed at creating boundary-spanning, barrier-crossing change.  Openness was in abundance.  Resources were shared and modified with enthusiasm and every chat-box and comments sections were brimming.  It was overwhelming and at times chaotic.  But it was liberating.  And the experience did not finish when the course came to an end.  I met new people who still send me tweets and occasionally Skype.  We share links, pictures and blogs and through the School I've been invited to contribute to the occasional project and conference.  I've even mentored others in subsequent editions of the programme.  None of this is possible if you aren't open to the opportunities created when you share and work together on a massive scale.

Change or Invention

In a full-throttle, high-velocity improvement workshop, a sharp-suited and high-heeled health service executive told us in uncompromising terms that innovation is exceptionally rare.  Had she attended Latin classes she might have known that to innovate means little more than to change.  Rather than being the exception, it is in fact our norm.

How we understand innovation depends on how we approach the issue at hand.  If you believe that every problem has a solution, you may subscribe to the concept that there are a limited number of ways to achieve the desired outcome.  The “inventive problem-solving” movement known as TRIZ, for instance, proposes that there are only 40 possible solutions to a problem.  

Of course, we would be fooling ourselves if we believed that every problem can be solved.  You don’t have to spend much time in clinical, social or educational practice (or in my case, all three) to realise this.  Think of public health campaigns to tackle smoking, alcohol and obesity.  Little wonder Grint (2008) terms these “wicked problems”.  Here the idea of innovating to change - rather than solve - is more appropriate.

Shiny tools or Sturdy bridges

Whether innovation in education is aimed at solving a conundrum, making a process better or producing something never seen before, we should be clear about the role of Open Educational Resources (OERs).  Are they just shiny, new tools?  In one respect, the technology makes them so, although I argue that the innovation goes beyond their ability to generate novel knowledge dissemination.  OERs are fostering a move from individual to collaborative learning through connectivism.  Indeed, McAndrew and Farrow (2013) describe OER as moving attention "from the resources themselves to the structures and social connections around the content" (p.66).  They also argue that OERs innovate by bridging  the gap between formal and informal learning, thus introducing social capital to the learning process (Mujis et al, 2010). In this respect they are challenging the traditional concept that in higher education you get what you pay for.  In some instances - for example, where links are broken  - they are complementing and augmenting paid courses.  And why shouldn’t they?  

After all, a bridge “works” in both directions.

References

• Grint, K. (2008) ‘Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: the role of leadership’, Clinical Leader, vol. 1, no. 2.
• McAndrew, P. and Farrow, R. (2013) ‘Open education research: from the practical to the theoretical’ in McGreal, R., Kinuthia, W. and Marshall, S. (eds) Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice, Vancouver, Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University, pp65-78.