Personal Blogs

Hello everyone

In this offering, I summarise my findings on the reading of DeRosa (2016), My open textbook: pedagogy and practice, which explores learning through the creation of open educational resources (e.g when students create a textbook and publish online for everyone and anyone to use and learn about the process) in reflecting on my own experience of OER on several MOOCS I've been a part of. 

Image Source: 
Opensourceway / CC BY-SA

DeRosa's (2016), 'My open textbook: pedagogy and practice' is an almost too good to be true example of open educational practice. The course I currently study on (the Open University H817 course, 'Openness and innovation in e-Learning') and other courses I've studied on have utilized open pedagogy, which is why I say 'too good to be true ' - almost. Open Pedagogy is defined by BC Campus (2020) as:

'the use of open educational resources ...with a goal of improving education...inviting ...students to be part of the teaching process, participating in the co-creation of knowledge.'

and my own experience of open pedagogy for me illustrates some of the potential benefits and drawbacks of open pedagogy for some.  But Rosa's experience doesn't surprise me.  It is simply an open pedagogical example of a perfect storm - a serendipitous coming together of the right ingredients - keen students who love their subject, who quickly form a cohesive team, ably aided by an adventurous, knowledgable teacher with a similar zest for exploration and collaboration.  Here are some of the pros and cons most mere mortals will encounter:

Potential drawbacks
if there is no consistent group to begin with (e.g. there is a rolling enrollment where new, uninitiated students keep popping up)
if 'training' is needed pre-task, such as how to use an app or an approach to learning only a few learners are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with.  Using an online platform, students may not be able to find what they are looking for to take part in a group task
if no one has time or opportunity - online courses involve people from all over the world, different time zones and often with previous commitments - unlike a group of college students whose main commitment is the course

Benefits
As DeRosa points out, the benefits of the approach far outweigh the potential drawbacks. It is worth facing the drawbacks because in many ways, even the embarrassing pitfalls (on many levels) aid learners in their search for rich, worthwhile ( you'll get there in the end) and meaningful (transferable realistic) learning experiences: students become independent doers and teachers what they need to be more often - learners.  As roles switch and educator/learner realise their roles are becoming more flexible, a new relationship between teacher/learners evolves and brings them closer together. At the same time, learners see each other more as companions on a learning journey that they need each other to complete.

In our little micro experience of open pedagogy (creating a group wiki) all of the drawbacks occurred. Nevertheless, groups did get it together to create a wiki page with links that each member had worked on to create the site. Some of us question whether the experience had come too early in the course.  Because of the insight it gave me in one vital area of the course content, I was very glad for what it gave me. We immediately felt a group responsibility to do our part or to let others know what we could contribute at the very least, in most cases.  This motivated a lot of us to go beyond to help the group and not lose group 'face'. 

Though some of us (me) had not built a wiki before, I am sure we will be even more interested and engaged the next time we are asked to do something like it again.  Thi sis an example of how a group task can motivate to learn more when working alone, it's possible to just hide and hope no one notices you, which works in many cases.   I am much more motivated as well to extol the benefits of wikis to my learners, asking them to open a free account and set up wikis of their own and of learning how to create open resources such as open textbooks.  

I end with a paraphrase of some of Rosa's tips about what can help  make open pedagogy a success:

• Rome was not built in a day.  Look at the whole experience as a work-in-progress in one approach to more effective learning. Quote: 'it will continually improve as learners engage with it.'
• If it connects with the course aims and / or more importantly, with students' own learning goals, it is worthwhile.
• Nowadays there are resources for learning how to do anything - get with it.  In Rosa's class's case 'Learn how to openly license your book and learn how to get it online so folks can access and share it' (DeRosa 2016). 

Reference

DeRosa R. (2016) ‘My open textbook: pedagogy and practice’ [Online]. Available at: http://robinderosa.net/ uncategorized/ my-open-textbook-pedagogy-and-practice/ (Accessed 21 October 2019).

image source: Lane, L.M. (2012) ‘Three Kinds of MOOCs

Comparing MOOCs

Even in the last five years, definitions of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have evolved.  I say definitions because I think it is widely agreed that there are different types of MOOCs, serving different purposes for the users and for providers. Originally, since the early part of the 21st century (though some will argue that MOOCs existed before then), most observers could probably agree that a MOOC was a course provided through an online platform, using tools such as videos, and discussion forums, and with the emergence of web 2.0 apps, the ability to integrate with social networks.  Some of the main characteristics of a MOOC were that they were often provided free, open to anyone and were offered by internationally known institutions or their faculty and did not offer a formal accreditation system.

cMOOCs (including task-based and networked-based)

Prior to 2015, we had seen the emergence of two major strands of MOOCs: cMOOCs and xMOOCs. The theoretical basis of cMOOCs was seen as “connectivism, openness, and participatory teaching” (Jacoby, cited in Veletsianos and Shepherdson 2016, p. 199- 200), emphasizing the active part learners play in knowledge creation, through their connections with other learners and their learning environment via networks facilitated by online technology. Canadian researchers George Siemens, Stephen Downes, and Dave Cormier based their MOOCs on the connectivist principles that everyone should determine their own learning goals, and structure and manage their own learning via personal learning networks.  The learner is free throughout the whole learning process.   These principles are still followed through in the task-based (Lane, 2012) MOOC, d106 facilitated by Jim Groom and Rhizomatic 15 by Dave Cormier, both supported by leading lights in connectivism theory.  Cormier describes Rhizomatic as ‘a story for how we can think about learning and teaching’ where the learning community is the ‘curriculum’ or ‘challenge’. He asks participants to think of the learning environment as ‘’a research lab’, in which where participants are ‘researching along with me’.  In terms of technology, the emphasis on social networking tools is clear when he talks about his communication with learners: ‘I’ll post it in the newsletter, I’ll tweet it … I’ll post it in the Facebook group and I’ll post it on the course blog.’  Similarly, d106 is described as 'Digital Storytelling’ where ‘you can join in whenever you like and leave whenever you need’ and describes how they ran a course ‘where… there was no teacher’.  Communication is via a blog feed. Due to their open nature (where is no set ‘curriculum’, learners define ‘success’ and learning path, it is difficult to formally assess a learner’s progress and therefore to acquire monetary gain from these types of MOOC.

xMOOCs (including content-based)

In contrast to cMOOCS, xMOOCs follow a cognitivist-behaviourist approach (Hew & Cheung, cited in Veletsianos and Shepherdson 2016, p.199) resembling ‘traditional teacher-directed course[s]’ (Kennedy, cited in Veletsianos and Shepherdson 2016, p.200). The number of xMOOCs delivered has been growing rapidly, whilst any cMOOCS that still have some connectivist aspects to them (use of social media, group tasks) have adopted more and more of the features of xMOOCs (a fixed content is ‘delivered’ – hence the term content-based), to the extent they can be called hybrids. The UK company FutureLearn, for example, offers free, open MOOCS but its platforms are also used to promote fee-paying degrees with The Open University, microcredits and badges and the courses are structured by Futurelearn to quite a large extent. FutureLearn’s free courses also offer ‘extra benefits’ for a price, so students can gain extended access to materials. None of these are offered for a fee on the cMOOCS discussed above, as any course benefits are extended free of charge. The ‘open’ aspect on Futurelearn courses is more about students’ freedom to study at their own pace, than on unfettered access to materials. In terms of technology, however, Futurelearn has a more varied offering.  On its online educator course, students use video, interactive quizzes and polls that are a fixed part of the course offering, as well as various social media that are used on the cMOOC courses, ds106 and Rhizomatic.  

In 2020, there are more than 900 universities around the world offering over 11,400 MOOCs and the emphasis is on monetary gain – accounting for the emphasis on a cognitivist-behaviourist, where institutions can ask for payment based on the learners’ achievement of specific goals.  So, whilst, d106 and Rhizomatic, offering free courses, make very little money each year, by contrast, Coursera's 2018 estimated revenue is around $150 million and FutureLearn made around $10million. This means there is a corresponding focus on formal accreditation of learning. Perhaps partly for the same reason, the concept of free and openness, very apparent in former approaches to MOOCs, has now evolved to mean anyone can apply from anywhere.  More and more courses are asking for formal proof of prior learning, such as a diploma or degree and fees are being charged in return for globally recognised certificates.  However, the term ‘open’ has always been defined differently by different observers. FutureLearn course, I can speak to all aspects of one of its MOOCs. 

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45.

Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the massive open online course: A literature review. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 73-85.

Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research review, 2009–2012. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1), 1–16.

Lane, L.M. (2012) ‘Three Kinds of MOOCs’ Blog. [Online]. Available at http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/musings/three-kinds-of-moocs/ (Accessed March 29, 2020)

Veletsianos and Shepherdson (2016), A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015.