Personal Blogs

Now, this is more like it!  I do buy into the notion of rhizomatic learning.  Compared to connectivist learning I certainly buy into this metaphor.  We might consider the rhizome metaphor to indicate little more than a 'web', a series of connections. But what is in evidence here is a fairly thorough theory of learning, and for me that is something lacking in connectivism.  Cormier is convincing in his examination and explanation of complex learning.  This complexity is then the driver behind the need for access to networks, distributed knowledge, expertise, etc.  I like that model.

How does it differ to the typical Higher Education course?  Well it would be tempting to say that a course designed around such a learning theory would be far less structured.  That is probably goig to be the case but actually I feel that there would probably need to be more thought put into it than goes into the typical content-heavy curriculum.

As for issues, the biggest for me would be to get students to engage in the process.  One reason that I like the sound of rhizomatic learning is that I have used some problem based learning and I see this model fitting well with pbl.  The challenge there tends to be to design a course structure that manages student experience and expectations.  The notion of 'managing' the student experience and expectations might seem at odds with the learning theory but I don't think so.  Students are so used to 'chalk and talk' that they do need to be weened away from it before they can be productive.  Some training in the process of engagement is therefore needed.

I was pleased to be introduced to the concept of a personal learning network (PLN).  Previously I had been aware of a Personal Learning Environment, but I had felt that there was a component missing in that term.  I PLE is more related to the sytems, technologies and resources that we might use, at a personal level, to engage in the process of learning.  This definition misses the significant impact of people.

Although I am not yet a convert to the connectivist camp because it apears to require me to sign up to being happy to engage with thousands of people I do fully acknoldege the benefits of being able to connect with knowledgeable and/or like-minded individuals on particular topics, either for a relatively short or long period of time, either for benefit of a short term collaboration or to establish a more long term relationship.

This notion of connectivism is at the heart of a PLN,and I do fully subscribe to it, with the proviso that I do not feel that connecting has to be accompanied by an initial ad-hoc and rather arbitrary dumping of masses of individuals into some sort of environment from which they are assumed to be able to srot themselves out, identify like minded others and form themselves into useful groups.  I suppose the law of averages says that if you throw enough people together some relationships will always emerge, but it would appear a tremendously wasteful and potentially harmful way to do it, in my opinion.

Thinking of a PLN helps me to put a psychological boundary around the resources and people that I may draw on in my learning, and I find that useful.

My context is a UK University, Business School, teaching marketing.

Yes, I do feel that I could make use of a MOOC.  It would probably not be for use with our existing students, of course.  It would probably be used as a marketing tool.

I am in the process of developing distance learning materials to support the delivery of courses in marketing that are certified by the Chartered Institute of Marketing.  These courses and materials will be predominantly used in-house with a on-ground students.  In addition we see the potential to sell these courses worldwide.  I could see the potential to use a MOOC as either a taster or as a 'pay to be assessed' course.

I am quite sure that we would be looking at the xMOOC format as opposed to the cMOOC format; it is closer to our usual modus-operandi and would fit more readily with the business model outlines above.

I found the Siemens, Cornier and Weller video interesting.  Cormier and Siemens both talked about the need to re-define the role of the University, away from the deliverer of content and more towards a thinking of them as a way of enabling a discourse with available experts.  That is, the University might on more of a facilitative role rather than a knowledge dissemination role.  This might suggest that Universities will move towards a cMOOC model.  I am not at all certain of that; a major culture shift would be needed for that to happen.  As Siemens puts it, our challenge is now not so much to understand that capabilities and role of MOOCs, but that of the Univeristy.  Interesting times we are living through.

Change MOOC – Rice – collaboration on certain courses by institutions and individuals around the globe.  Very decentralised with little structure.  Relatively little if any funding.

Coursera – MIT – A determination to publish existing courses openly online and to keep them up to date, supported by institutional funds.  Highly structured organisation.

Jorum – MIT - – A determination to publish existing courses openly online and to keep them up to date, supported by institutional funds.  Highly structured organisation.

Open Learn – USU – A determination to publish many of the University courses online, supported largely by volunteers and with some donations.  Medium level of organisation and structure.

Although I can see the logic of the models applied by Wiley they do share something in common; they are all generated from what I might term Macro MOOCS (or perhaps more accurately, OER projects).  Wiley is studying large organisations producing large MOOCs.  These large organisations have all got substantial resources to support their approach to MOOCs, be it in terms of finance, staff, or power of the brand to gain support from willing volunteers.   I feel that this is a bit of a problem because it is surely not only Massive organistaions that are interested in developing MOOCs/OER projects.

Another issue for me is that although Wiley is identifying differences in the models that are producing MOOCs there is very little attention given to the actual sustainability model.  That is, once the hype has worn off and MOOCs are so 'yesterday' how will places like MIT find funds to sustain the initiative and how will the RICE initiative retain the enthusiasm of volunteer contributors?

I feel that this activity is a little confused in that it asks us to consider issues to do with OERs and yet many of the suggested readings are about Open Education and that is not synonymous with Open Educational Resources.  This activity is claimed to build in a previous activity in which we identified three priorities for Open Education.  In the earlier activity I identified pedagogy, accessibility and sustainability as three key issues for applying concepts of Open Education in an HE environment.  These will be used here.

Pedagogy:
Comment based on; Attwell, G. & Pumilia, P.M. (2007) The New Pedagogy of Open Content: Bringing Together Production, Knowledge, Development, and Learning. Data Science Journal, 6, 211- 219

Attwell and Pumilia suggest that one of the biggest threats of the open content movement is the possible commodification of knowledge; the tendency for knowledge to be thought of as a product or set of products that can be bought or sold.   I found this very interesting and thought provoking, largely because the predominant philosophy is that openness increases accessibility, breaks down barriers, etc etc.  The authors move on to discuss the juxtaposition of the move towards a tightening of copyright laws whilst at the same time we are witnessing a proliferation of freely available Open resources.  They then consider how quality of such open resources can be assured (hence the connection to pedagogy).  Perhaps we might see a move towards a rating system of OERs, whereby those created by ‘professionals’ are valued more highly?

Accessibility:
Comment based on; Caswell, T. et al., (2008) Open educational resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1–4.

Caswell compares traditional distance learning with the new era of open resources whereby digital technologies have led to an elimination of distribution costs.  This, in turn has led to the role of distance education shifting towards a tool for social transformation, not merely an alternative to classroom teaching.  Once the capacity to offer free educational materials has been achieved it can even be considered a moral obligation to do so, in order to satisfy the basic human right to education.  This paper does not consider the practical aspects of facilitating accessibility in terms of access to broadband, necessary software, etc.

Sustainability:
Comment based on: Downes, Stephen (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

The widening access as a result of lowered costs brings with it a problem; sustainability. Downes examines sustainability from the perspective of three models; funding, technology and content.  He also suggests that we need to consider OERs as part of a bigger context to include volunteers and incentives, community and partnerships, etc.  Downes suggests that the definition of “Open” must include an assumption of “free”, and that free should apply not only to free access, but also freedom to copy, modify, redistribute.  But such notion of free and accompanying freedoms do not mean that the production and or maintenance of such resources are cost free.  The per-unit cost can be reduced by increasing the number of downloads or users but this does not reduce the cost of production.  Other costs relate to investments in technology, organization and policy.  Notions of sustainability may not relate to covering costs or making money but also to achieving some particular, wider objective.  In such cases the deadweight cost may be carried due to the wider potential benefits. 

In terms of funding models, a number are identified; endowment, membership, donations, conversion, contribution, sponsorship, institutional, government, partnership and exchange.  I was not familiar with all of these models, so found this aspect of the paper very interesting, and useful.