“There are two fundamental approaches to OLL
[online learning]. The first is to provide the tools and techniques for
individuals to access and organize information to sustain existing distance
education practices that maximize learner independence. The second is to use
the full capabilities of OLL to create purposeful communities of inquiry that
is currently transforming higher education based on collaborative
constructivist principles.” (Garrison 2009)
Barriers
to MOOC participation
The discussion of MOOCs has to some extent
focused on the differences between instructional design xMOOCs and cMOOCs that
are connected to connectivist or networked learning theory (Siemens 2005, Jones
2015). In both types of MOOCs, the learning outcome is determined by the
self-direction of the learner. The two types of MOOCs can be seen on a scale
from high to low structuration and from individual to collective-based
participation:
1.
Individual acquisition from pre-established curriculum and resources (xMOOC)
2. Self-organized and networked participation
in collaborative communities (cMOOC)
Option 1 and 2 both require a high level of
intrinsic motivation and provide a high degree of flexibility. 1 and 2 differ
when it comes to the social aspect in participation. cMOOCs integrate the
social aspect of learning and reciprocal collaboration is part of the learning
as well as the learning process. Collaboration is paid with a decreasing degree
of flexibility and heightened interdependence, which exactly emphasizes the
social element of learning and teaching.
However, far from all - or most of - the
potential participants have the prerequisite skills for participation either in
one or the other types of MOOCs, which Gráinne Conole shows in her article
‘MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for Enhancing the Learner
Experience and Quality of MOOCs’. Participating in a cMOOC can be a very
confusing experience if you are not very apt in online networking and knowledge
co-creation in advance. There are a lot communication options available that
you as participants will have to relate to and utilize to benefit from the
networked learning environment. The proclaimed autonomy also means that
individuals risk feeling lost and overwhelmed - frustrated with too many
options and the vast complexity of ‘the whole network as a learning
environment’. The opposite is the case with xMOOCs where there is no autonomy
when it comes to the knowledge offered. It is often a ‘take it or leave’ with
no space for negotiating the educational resources or the sensemaking of the
knowledge. The educational means often neglect current ways of learning
(collaboration, sensemaking, learning as situated etc) and are indeed often
ill-suited to many participants and potential participants’ specific learning
needs (Conole 2013 p. 11).
According to Conole, we are dealing with a
design challenge when it comes to exploiting the media-related options for the
design of web-based teaching. Some participants may have been able to exploit
the highly individualized form where MOOCs mainly consist of instructional
videos and individual tasks. Other students have had a blast and learned a lot
through networking and virtuoso use of various forms of communication. Both
groups of participants have been preconditioned with strong internal motivation
and good professional as well as learning methodological prerequisites
(Ferguson et.al. 2014).
The required prior knowledge and the habitus
that are needed for highly individualized and self-organized courses, however,
is a challenge for many. 'O' for open is a relative concept in MOOCs and the
skills required to participate in many MOOCs make them de facto closed for the
majority. This de facto closure makes MOOCs less suited as a distribution model
of education and training for the many. MOOCs as the well-known x- and c-MOOCs
are, therefore, not playing any important role in democratizing education.
If one thinks of education besides narrow job
related professional development and some university courses, the lack of real
openness is further stressed. If MOOCs are used as a national educational
strategy, the achievement with and through MOOCs are discouraging if we only
look at the experiences with the two types of MOOCs: xMOOCs and cMOOCs.
Online Social Learning - MOOSL
If MOOCs are to be part of an education policy
strategy which includes Higher and Further education, and other formal
education and as part of lifelong learning strategy, the question of
pedagogical thinking in MOOC design is crucial as formal education has an
obligation to attract a larger and broader group than those who already are
well educated and capable of engaging in self-directed education. And as
Karsten Gynther points out in “Design Framework for an Adaptive MOOC Enhanced
by Blended Learning” the dropout rate really matters when it comes to formal
education whereas it doesn’t necessarily matter when it comes to individual
professional development (Gynther 2016).
According to Stephen Downes, MOOCs should only
be judged by the outcomes of individuals: “Different people have different
objectives for MOOCs, and what we find in informal learning generally is that
people are successful through informal learning, insofar as it enables them to
do what it is that they wanted to do.” (Quoted in Buck 2013). But this is not
enough when it comes to utilizing the benefits of MOOCs in formal education. In
formal education, it does matter what people are learning from participating.
Formal education has other requirements than informal learning in respect to
content as well as completion rates.
There is a somewhat intrinsic relationship
between the skills learned and the pedagogical design. George Siemens (2005)
for example argues that the network society or the digital age requires a
special way of learning, and he is thus in line with many other researchers who
study the relationship between skills or competencies and the ‘digital age’.
Much research points to the need of 21st century competencies and new conditions
for learning associated with the development of an information and knowledge
society or 'the digital age' (ex. Sharpe et al. 2010; Beetham et al.
2007; Nussbaum-Beach et al. 2011; Laurillard 2012). Competencies like collaboration, co-creation,
communication and cross-cultural understanding are essential and must be
included as part of professional standard in most professions.
The focus on MOOCs in formal education changes
the perspective from merely a perspective of the participant - the individual -
to also include a societal perspective. Education is about ensuring the right
competency profile of the current and future workforce. From the perspective of
education this means a shift in focus from a technical viewpoint (how many can
you reach?) to a qualitative viewpoint (what will provide the best form of
learning/teaching in relation to the given conditions and requirements?). The
question changes from 'flexibility for participation' to 'educational quality
in supply' (Conole 2013).
Being a part of a national educational supply
MOOC design must consider that the learner should be able to engage in a social
learning contexts. MOOCs providing courses for individuals must take on
responsibility in terms of offering a learning environment with supportive
structures to diminish the need of a strong inner motivation. In a study on
different models for educational supply to a wider population, Petersen and her
colleagues also point to the need of more supportive structures in MOOCs if
MOOCs are to be part of formal education: “Some of the negative attributes of
MOOCs, however, may be explained by the lack of the supporting structures and
the social environment that we associate with traditional education formats
such as academic guidance, study group activities, social activities and
technical support.” (Petersen et al. 2016 p. 3). The guidance and peer
activities are scaffolds for students’ learning process and support the student
in achieving the relevant competencies not only for the student but for society
as well.
To reflect this need for social or other
supportive structures in MOOCs, Ove Christensen talks about Massive Open Online
Social Learning or alternatively Massive Open Scaffolded Learning (MOOSL).
(Christensen 2015, see also Ferguson 2014). The basic idea of MOOSL is the
same as in network learning, but with the difference that the social aspect of
learning becomes a principle for the design of the web-based training
provision, and that it is not necessarily the participants’ own learning
objectives that determine the participant’s progress. In the 2014 report Innovating Pedagogy Mike Scharples and
colleagues discuss “which successful pedagogies can improve with scale” and
they conclude that MOOCs only can scale if they take advantages of elements of
social learning. Their chapter on MOOCs has the telling title: “Massive Open
Social Learning.” (Scharples et.al. 2014).
A real open MOOC must be designed to better meet
the different needs of potential participants. In a well-designed MOOC, it must
therefore also be a participation option to be ‘supported’ and ‘guided’ through
a MOOC - MOOCs must facilitate participation, and teaching ‘how to mooc’ should
be part of the design. Moocing is what students do when they engage with the
online learning environment and the connected activities as co-authoring
assignments.
From the challenges, we have seen for MOOC
participation and the need for scaffolded participation, we find three
prototypes of participation that are equally legitimate in MOOCs in that they
are filling the variety of different needs for different types of
participation:
1. Individual self-paced acquisition of
knowledge and skills based on individual needs (xMOOCs)
2. Participation in collaborative
self-organized groups with different levels of participation in co-creation of
knowledge (cMOOCs)
3. Scaffolded programs that integrate
elements of collaborative communities, social learning and supportive
structures of participation (MOOSLs)
The third form of participation requires that
educators and MOOC providers must 'rethink pedagogy in the digital age'
(Beetham et.al 2007; Sharpe et.al. 2010). Research on the relationship between
technology and education points to several quality criteria for good
educational design. One can summarize the quality criteria in many ways, but
there is no doubt that they as a minimum must contain these seven elements
listed by Conole in ‘MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing
the learner experience and quality of MOOCs’ (Conole 2013):
● Encourage learner reflection
● Enable dialogue
● Foster collaboration
● Apply theory learnt to practice
● Create a community of peers
● Enable creativity
● Motivate the learners
And when it comes to online learning, it will
also be important that participants have a sense of belonging, feel safe in
their learning process and feel that the learning resources are relevant and
appropriate to the learner's needs. This is what Randy Garrison calls presence
and he operates with different kinds of presence: social presence, cognitive
presence and teaching presence (Garrison 2006 and 2007). He defines presence as
a prerequisite for the participants' co-creation, negotiation of meaning and
participants processing of understanding of teaching material. Social presence
is about the participants and their sense of community. Cognitive presence is
felt when the actual content and other learning resources are deemed relevant
for participants’ negotiation of meaning. Teaching presence deals with the
learning design that structures the teaching and its parts.
In a study of the presence forms that were at
stake in an online education, Armellini and Stafani showed that social presence
was felt by participants that recognized cognitive presence and teaching
presence (Armellini & de Stefani 2015). This finding emphasizes the
importance of the social element to support many participants in online
learning.
Social Media and Networked Learning
The idea of MOOSLs is that learners are
gathering around common learning interests to obtain specified competencies and
that they work collaboratively to achieve them as well as their personal
learning goals. They form a community - and it is the community that scaffolds
their learning. Learners in this model work like a network. The co-learners
become part of each other's Professional Learning Network (PLN). For this
process to happen the learners - the participants - must have platforms for
their communication, collaboration, co-creation and co-learning. That platform
can be the MOOC - or it can integrate other already existing platforms such as
social media. Especially Twitter offers a promising and dynamic learning
network and might be a cornerstone of a Professional Learning Network says
Nussbaum-Beech and Ritter in their very interesting study on The Connected Educator (Nussbaum-Beach
et.al. 2011).
Fei Gao and co-authors have studied the effect
of twitter integration in education up till 2011. In a meta-study, they
conclude that “microblogging has a potential to encourage participation,
engagement, reflective thinking as well as collaborative learning under
different learning settings.” (Gao et.al 2012 p.783). They find that Twitter is
a particularly promising tool for creating strong learning communities for many
reasons. Not alone the collaboration but also the possible participation of
people from the outside in the discussions is a benefit making learning much
more authentic. Using social media and especially Twitter in education
“promotes a collaborative virtual learning environment.” (Gau et.al 2012
p.783). But they also conclude that there is “a need for rigorous research on”
microblogging in education.
Gao’s conclusions are to some extent supported
by an empirical study by Gilly Salmon. Salmon and her team were running a MOOC
that tried to take advantage of social media as a supportive structure for the
students. And during and afterwards they surveyed and interviewed participants
on how they had used and benefitted from collaboration on Facebook and Twitter.
Their study confirms several potentials for learning when MOOC participation is
supported by social media (Salmon et.al. 2015).
In the study, they found that social media made
students more engaged in collaboration, co-creation, knowledge sharing and
reflexive learning practices. Social media interaction also supported a sense
of belonging to a community of learners. But they also found that there was no
evidence that social networks provided an arena for independent professional
development for all students. On the contrary, they found that for a sample of
students, social networks had the opposite effect. Alas, less creative
thinking, less knowledge sharing and reduced desire to collaborate. The
researchers found that the adverse effects were associated with the conception
of social media held by the students. “The main objections to using social
media can be divided into three categories: a belief that social media might be
a waste of time; the perception of social media platforms as confusing or
intimidating; and concerns about blurring social and professional identities.”
If students held these beliefs they did not benefit in their learning from
social media (Salmon et.al. 2015).
Unlike Gao's study, Salmon’s study indicates
that especially Facebook is more promising when used for reflexive learning,
while Twitter rather supported sharing of learning resources (Salmon et al.
2015).
That great learning effects that go beyond a
given MOOCs platform are achieved through social networking is also confirmed
by a study by Veletsiano and colleagues presented in ‘Digging deeper into
learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of
MOOCs, note taking and contexts surrounding content consumption.' They conclude
that the reflexive work through social networking with fellow students can
enhance learning. Their study supports the conclusion from Salmon that the
students’ conception of social media is important when it comes to the
benefits. If students embrace social media they are more likely to reap the
benefits through this type of learning.
The social media is not sufficient to offset
the challenges in MOOCs and other online learning courses compared to
sufficiently providing all or most participants with a sense of belonging to a
learning community, or to support competency development of interpersonal
skills, co-creation, communication and participation in reflexive and
collaborative learning processes.
To really teach students to mooc, more
supportive structures must be in place than just a coupling to social media.
But social media can for a large sample of students be one of the most
important scaffolding structures, and it is a structure that most of them know
from their everyday life - and something that most of them have experiences
with before participating in online learning.
Social Learning in MOOCs
In 'Guidelines for Facilitating the development
of learning communities in online courses' Yuan and Kim point to the importance
that MOOCs establish themselves as learning communities. Learning Communities,
where participants have a sense of belonging, where there is academic exchange,
collaboration and knowledge sharing, and how you can work together on common
issues is essential for the many benefits of web-based education. To succeed the learning communities, must be
part of the design, and it must continuously be supported in the course (Yuan
& Kim 2014). There must therefore be allocated ‘space’ to 'group
activities'.
It is also important that MOOC instructors
contribute to the learning communities and their maintenance to give the
students a security for the professionalism (the feeling for teaching presence
(Garrison 2009), which Salmon (2015) pointed out to be a challenge. Yuan and
Kim also stresses the need to work with both synchronous and asynchronous
contribution to the learning communities. The principles of teachers' active
participation and use of both synchronous and asynchronous contributions to
learning communities can be both costly and reduce the flexibility of a
web-based training. But to make sure that MOOCs become an educational
opportunity for the many, MOOC providers still have much to work on. (Ferguson
2014).
It is essential that study activities in a MOOC
are designed so that they require or at least strongly support that students
are working in groups. (Yuan & Kim 2014). And the activities need to be
varied so students are accustomed to different ways of working with peers. It
is crucial that there are different activities, so the learning community is
activated in different learning processes: reflective, collaborative,
discursive and so on.
References
Armellini, A. & M. De Stefani (2015):
"Social presence in the
21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework", British Journal of Educational Technology
Beetham, H. & R. Sharpe (eds.). (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age:
Designing for 21st century learning. Routledge.
Christensen, O. et.al (2014), Kan vi lære af
de andre? - udenlandske erfaringer med e-læring og blended learning i
erhvervsuddannelser og læreruddannelser for erhvervsskolelærere.
(What to be learned from
others? - Foreign experiences with elearning and blended learning in vocational
education and teacher education) UCSJ Forlag
Conole, Gráinne (2013): ‘MOOCs as disruptive technologies:
strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs.’ Revista de Educación a Distancia 39
Ferguson, Rebecca, and Mike Sharples (2014): ‘Innovative pedagogy at
massive scale: teaching and learning in MOOCs.’ Open
Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities 98-111.
Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning:
A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in
2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology,
43(5), 783-801.
Garrison, R. (2006): ‘Online collaboration
principles’,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 10.1
Garrison, D. (2007): ‘Online Community of
Inquiry Review: Social, Cognitive, and Teaching Presence Issues’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks 11.1
Garrison, R. (2009). ‘Implications of online learning
for the conceptual development and practice of distance education’. The Journal of Distance Education, 23
Gynther, K. (2016). ‘Design Framework for an Adaptive
MOOC Enhanced by Blended Learning: Supplementary Training and Personalized
Learning for Teacher Professional Development’. EJEL # 1
Jones, Christopher (2015): Networked Learning - An Educational
Paradigm for the Age. Springer, Berlin
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science.
Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. New York, NY,
Routledge
Nussbaum-Beach S. &; Lani Ritter Hall
(2011), The Connected Educator. Learning
and Leading in a Digital Age. Solution Tree.
Petersen, A.K., A. Hestbech & P. Gundersen
(2016). ‘A Design Based
Introduction to Learning Centres’. LOM # 15
Salmon, G. et.al (2015): ’The space for social
media in structured online learning’, Research
in Learning Techonolgy. Vol. 23
Sharpe, R., H. Beetham, S. De Freitas. (2010). Rethinking learning for a digital age: How
learners are shaping their own experiences. Routledge.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory
for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and
distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Surowiecki, James (2005). The wisdom of crowds. Anchor.
Yuan, J. & C. Kim (2014): ‘Guidelines for
facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30.3
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar