Personal Blogs

Comparing DS106 with Coursera – not quite chalk and cheese

I am pleased I spent time comparing these two MOOC offers before reading Daniel (2012) as he gives a particularly critical perspective on MOOCs that have come from the elite universities and it would have coloured my thinking on Coursera.

An obvious difference between the two is that wherever you look with DS106 you see its key themes – digital story telling and student input/interaction - blasting out at you, whereas Coursera presents an orderly list of courses by subject area – very clearly branded to the institutions where they originate using a catalogue-like structure that tells you whether each course is for you, what you would need to know and what you will have to do.

The use of technology in DS106 is therefore much more obvious and extensive – you are aware of the forums and posts using different kinds of media, also channels like the radio station, immediately.  Coursera does use several technologies (see reference to guitar playing below) but the most obvious medium is video.

An obvious difference in pedagogical styles is that fact that most Coursera material seems to be “presented” to the learner by video, whereas DS106 has a range of different channels and is driven by interaction between students and students, students and materials, students and tutors.

Schuwer et al (2013) describe four categories of MOOC:

cMOOCs – network based

xMOOCs – content based

mMOOCS – intermediate between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, combining networking and content platforms

Task-based MOOCs – learners are assigned tasks to complete and share

They identify Coursera as being in the xMOOC category and DS106 as being in the task-based category.  There is a risk of taking these distinctions too literally – DS106 clearly has a large networking element for example but my understanding of these categories is that they describe the core approach to teaching.

Kop (2011) lists four activities that enhance learning within the self-directed online experience:

·      Aggregation – have lots of resources to work with

·      Relation – reflecting and connecting the content to something

·      Creation – making meaning by building an output such as a blog entry

·      Sharing – giving other learners access to the output

and it is interesting that the MOOCs she researched for this paper showed challenges with the creation activity – large numbers of learners did very little of this.  A task-based MOOC might be expected to require a great deal of creation (other than just completion of assignments) and DS106 is testament to how this can work – it is packed with examples of items created by learners and the creation from the course itself has clearly flowed over into further creativity with learners making and sharing videos of their experiences on the course.

Coursera does not exclude this style.  There is an introductory course on guitar playing which requires learners to record themselves playing and upload the sound files for example – it could be debated how much creation is involved in this activity but I would describe it as a form of meaning making.

On the one hand, McAuley et al’s (2010) description of how a MOOC works could obtains with either of these two models as there are, they say, no hard and fast rules but equally they are stressing that MOOCs bring together three things - connectivity through social networking, expertise in a particular field and lots of free resources.  The xMOOC approach exampled by Coursera is not without connectivity but it appears to emphasise the expertise factor (and the university brand) way over the social networking aspect.

References

Daniel, J. (2012), ‘Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility www-jime.open.ac.uk/article/2012-18/html (accessed 4^th April 2013)

Kop, R. (2011) The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks: Learning Experiences during a Massive Open Online Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 12, No 3 (2011): Special Issue - Connectivism: Design and Delivery of Social Networked Learning  http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/882/1823 (accessed 4^th April 2013)

McAuley, A.; Stewart, B.; Siemens, G.; Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf (accessed 4^th April 2013)

Schuwer, R., Janssen, B., and van Valkenburg, W. (2013)MOOCs: Trends and Opportunities for

Higher Education in Trend report: open educational Resources 2013 the open educational resources special interest group https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/Trend%20Report%20OER%202013_EN_DEF%2007032013%20(LR).pdf (accessed 8^th April 2013)

Daniel (2012) Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility

MOOC represent a research challenge because they are still a very new phenomena; even newer are the xMOOCs from the US elite universities which are more behaviourist-based than the earlier, connectivist ones (cMOOCs).

The two approaches are very different and the newness of xMOOCs means we have not yet seen much of a reaction to them.  There is a theory that institutions such as Stanford and MIT are using MOOC methodology to try and master online learning as a response to the presumed impact that it will have on their on-campus students – if they do not know how to tame this technology it will represent a major threat to their futures.

The xMOOCs have been claimed to have very high registration levels but also claimed to have equally high attrition rates, instances of plagiarism and suspect results from some who do complete.

There are a number of possible monetization opportunities from MOOCs although it is not certain that the institutions will benefit substantially from them.

A merchant bank-driven initiative called Academic Partnerships has launched a series of MOOCs with other universities which are achieving income and good graduation rates.

Daniel raises a number of criticisms of xMOOCs, among them the fact that the universities behind them are known for their research, not their teaching, which may account for what is seen by some as very poor pedagogy.  The drop out rate is also an interesting paradox – Daniel says that these universities are defined by the numbers of people they exclude, which somehow implies that large numbers of people dropping out along the way is not a bad thing for them.

Daniel states that MOOCs do not represent a solution to the provision of education in the developing world, though online technology probably is. He predicts that the methods used by xMOOCs will change and adapt as assessment of MOOC practice becomes more commonplace (in the same way that teaching quality assessment now is).  He cites Ernie Boyer, who had a vision that universities would one day see to distinguish themselves through their unique qualities rather than by competing on external factors, and suggests that MOOCs could help to make this happen.

Big OER and Little OER

Weller (2011) The Digital Scholar - How technology is transforming scholarly practice

(Chapters 7 & 9)

Big OERs are based on major projects, often HEIs, with explicit aims to achieve specific educational outcomes.  They are of high quality and are delivered in planned, consistent ways, for example through a portal which is designed for this purpose.

Little OERs originate from the activities of individuals or groups who are creating and distributing materials which may not have specific educational aims. There is no consistency in their production and quality may be low.

(page 105)

There may be an 80:20 relationship between these types of OER and their usage bases - traffic to many big OERs is "impressive" (page 109) and they represent a small proportion of OERs in terms of units but provide a very large volume of content to a large number of learners and reusers.  Little OERs will account for a high proportion of units but may serve a smaller part of the market (though it must be hard to tell as there is no definitive record by the nature of what little OERs are).

Some ways in which they differ in terms of value/offer:

Sustainability - Big OERs face major issues over their longevity, with all their attendant issues with the costs of development and distribution.  Little OERs are generated through passion, spare time and the need or desire to do something else (like air ideas or research) and will continue to emerge over time because they just can

Quality - where an OER is being delivered by a well known branded institution, its reputation acts as an incentive to ensure the educational quality and integrity of the product and the resources behind the project enable higher production values to be applied.  Little OERs may be of very high quality; some user-generators have access to very sophisticated equipment and software, have excellent production skills and are committed to the educational quality of their output - but this is never guaranteed. My personal view of low quality web material is that I want to use it less than material with higher production values regardless of the content because the medium, is something I don't want to notice - with good production I see the message and ignore the medium, with poor production I am distracted by things such as sound quality, poor images, bad use of language etc.

Reuse - if reuse is built into the design of an OER in terms of what the licence and the format allow, reuse is more likely to happen.  Weller states that Big OERs aim more for adaptation - large amounts of content are localised in some way, whereas little OERs tend to be aggregated for reuse - disparate items are pulled together and included in some bigger educational package (page 107).

Meeting needs - users may be more inclined to go directly to a Big OER that was designed for the purpose which they are seeking to achieve; little OERs may be more likely to be stumbled across although the searchability of the web might negate this assumption somewhat.  A fundamental difference is in the intent - Big OERs have clear and declared aims behind them which are coherent and which guide the creation of resources to meet these aims and therefore the needs of the users they were designed for.  Little OERs might also be designed for particular purposes but there is no coherence across the broad and diverse base of resources.

Creative Commons Licences

Attribution

CC BY

-          Very open and flexible – anyone can do anything with your work as long as they credit you – makes wide dissemination very easy

Attribution-ShareAlike
CC BY-SA

-          As Attribution but others have to licence the derived work under the same terms

Attribution-NoDerivs
CC BY-ND

-          Work can be copied but not changed

Attribution-NonCommercial
CC BY-NC

-          Like Attribution but work cannot be used for commercial purposes

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC BY-NC-SA

-          Like Attribution-ShareAlike but work cannot be used for commercial purposes

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

-          Work can be shared, must be credited, no other uses allowed

I would have thought that the choice of licence would have to depend on what the author wanted to do with the work. 

I find the idea of CC BY very appealing for my independent work in the learning field because it enables the full benefits of web distribution in getting ideas out and enabling others to use them.

This would change if I have undertaken a unique and highly original piece of research and I had concerns about it losing its meaning but still wanted wide dissemination - this might take me to CC BY-ND.

OERs are major undertakings; they require a considerable amount of development and careful planning in order to get them established.  Once they are established they need continual participation and resourcing to keep going.

I think the biggest overall challenge for OERs therefore is whether they have a future and if they do, what this looks like.  A number of other students identified sustainability as one of the priorities for institutions looking at OERs; I would argue that it is the number one challenge and that there are a number of specific issues to consider when making sense of OER futures.

I looked at some articles which considered sustainability of OERs and found (unsurprisingly) that there are many common issues highlighted.

Downes (2007) considers methods of funding, models for distributing, using and reusing content, and ways of resourcing with staff as factors which impact the sustainability of OERs.

Albright (2005) lists a number of issues that will impact the future success of OERs including economic models, scalability, appropriateness of technologies and educational suitability

Caswell et al (2008) see the future of OERs as being based on a return to the original notion of community – they will need to acquire a life of their own and be driven by continual collaboration, contribution and use. They highlight funding and copyright/ownership issues as challenges faced by institutions running OERs.

My three big issues are economics, learner support and suitability of resources, all of which underpin many of the other issues.

Without the right economic model, OERs cannot exist.  Atkins et al (2007) state that a course from MIT’s OpenCourseware initiative costs £25,000 p.a. to run, all inclusive and that the future has to be in institutions being able to treat OERs as a small component of their business as usual activities.

I was at a seminar at Learning Technologies this year where it was suggested that commercial learning providers might get into OERs as a way of displaying their wares (some do things a bit like this already) and given the credibility benefits that OERs offer institutions (for example Caswell et al 2008 describe how new students are often aware of an institution’s OER and it can affect their choice of institution), it could be that they treat them as a marketing channel.  However they approach it, the economic question needs answering.

Assuming economic viability, the OER is still only sustainable if people make use of it and contribute to it.  It needs to be decided what the learner experience will be and this could range from merely being able to access, read and reuse educational resources (where minimal learner support is needed) to a fully moderated and supported course event (like the OpenLearn Open Education MOOC).  This model will determine how fit for purpose the OER is for the community at which it is aimed; if it is intended to allow people to derive educational benefit from it, it could be argued that provision of some level of tutor interaction is essential.

The educational suitability of its resources is the second element which will determine how fit for purpose the OER is and therefore how sustainable. This impacts the design of the resources in the first place (MIT OCW contains some materials which appear to be no more than the sharing of notes and slides designed for a face to face course – these may be interesting for someone trying to design their own course but may have reduced utility for an independent learner).  It also impacts the way they are kept up to date, incorporate learner feedback, new research etc. Again, the purpose for which it needs to be fit must be what drives the model for ensuring suitability.  And both of these are dependent on the OER being econmically viable.  

References

Albright, P. (2005) UNESCO (IIEP): Final forum report. 2008-09-01 http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/oerforumfinalreport.pdf

Atkins, D.E., Brown-Seely, J. & Hammond, A.L., (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jenson, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). ‘Open Educational Resources: Enabling Universal Education’. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9/1http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/469/1001

Downes, S. (2007), 'Models for sustainable open educational resources', Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, vol. 3. Available from: http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes.pdf

Learning objects

Downes (2001) – Learning Objects: Resources for distance education

This article was written at a time when learning objects and associated concepts such as the SCORM standards were relatively new. 

Downes uses a basic economic argument to demonstrate that rather than creating identical tools to teach identical content within every institution, content should be produced once and able to be shared and reused.

He describes the now well-known standards of IMS and SCORM and how they sought to tackle reusability and interoperability.  For object data, he identifies HTML as a common authoring language but predicts (rightly) that specific tools will become more widely-used for particular course authoring purposes such as setting up quizzes.

He also covers the challenges faced at the time with multimedia – storage capacity and access to the right software were larger constraints then than now.

His vision is of vast repositories of objects which are open to educational instututions to teach core material in a way which is economically viable.

Elements of his vision have come true but learning objects did not materialise in exactly the way he predicts and this may be because they were driven more by technological expedience than pedagogical excellence.