A little funny-Friday stuff here.  This comic was shared by a cohort-mate this week.  It provided some good levity while we wait for grades for EDDE 804. That said... I do wonder how one can go on the offensive in a Distance Education context where the dissertation is defended via Adobe Connect...

Back at the tail end of 2013 I had written a two part article, which I aimed to pitch to Learning Solutions Magazine. However, if memory serves me correct, the MOOC craze had been waining a bit, and corporate MOOCs weren't really talked much about; even today I would argue that corporate MOOCs are a non-starter - many seem to confuse and conflate a MOOC with self-paced eLearning.

In any case, due to this cooling off on MOOC interest, and a directorial change (again, from what I recall) I don't think this two-part article was accepted.  The articles were stuck in suspension in my Google Docs account merrily forgotten, until I started looking for other documents yesterday and I stumbled upon them. I am not sure how much use these still are, but I thought I would publish them anyway ;-)

Part I of What MOOCs can do for the traditional online classroom can be found here, and part II here.  I've also embedded part I in this post.

Here is the recording of the live session I was in where Matt Crosslin talked about the dual layer MOOC design.  I still question the notion of assessments in MOOCs :-)

For as long as I can remember (well...for the last 10 years anyway) I've been able to participate in at least 2 our of 3 virtual conferences that the OLC (formerly Sloan-C) put on.  I've never been able to attend in person (for a variety of reasons), but I've always liked to have the ability to participate, even remotely.   I am often on twitter during the live sessions tweeting away with commentary. It's a lot of fun, and I've "met" a variety of interesting individuals through this.

A couple of years ago I was not able to participate in #et4online (now #OLCinnovate) because the school I work for didn't have the funds to "send" me virtually. I have to say that I really missed the opportunity to participate, even remotely, at this professional development conference. I kept an eye on the twitter stream but things didn't make as much sense. The reaction, and #OLCsnark didn't connect with me because I was missing a piece of the puzzle.  I wanted in!

Flash forward to this year, through a fluke (well financial issues which came up this year at the university) I was not able to register for the conference as a virtual.  My colleagues did get a day-pass that we have projected in a conference room so many of us can attend with one virtual pass, but  it's not as convenient (although I may crash that party today ;-) ).  Even though I am not signed up to attend the vast majority of the recorded and virtual sessions at OLC Innovate, I find that I am not missing it as much this year, and that's thanks to friends and colleagues over at virtually connecting, and presenters who are virtually-connecting friendly.

We had a blast yesterday during the Hybridity presentation. The on-site buddies (and fellow co-presenters) did such an amazing job at including us virtuals (Alan, Maha, and I) that I really felt that I was part of the conversations (big thanks goes to my on-site buddy Autumm who was awesome!). At my table there were a total of 8-10 discussants (including me and Autumm).  Due to the narrowness of the field of view of the camera I was only able to see 2 people at a time, and every time Autumm turned the laptop my reaction was "OMG! There are more people at this table interested in talking! Awesome!").

There are, of course, logistical issues with this approach (i.e. how does this scale to 100 or more registrants? Do you 'dual-layer' a conference to make it more manageable? etc.), but it was a pretty fantastic experience.  The funny thing is that I was on Google Hangouts on my Mac, which was positioned in one part of the room and I could see the room from the podium, and I was on skype, on my ubuntu box, participating at the table discussion.  Initially I would glance over at my Mac and try to compare where Autumm, Andrea, and Rebecca were talking to and from in order to ascertain my "position" in the room. Which table was I at? How close was it to the podium? Who was at other tables?  It was an interesting experience.

The other way of being included is in Matt Crosslin's presentation on Dual Layer MOOCs.  It seemed that Virtually Connecting was integrated into this (again, thanks Autumm for being my legs in the room! :-) ) and not only did we see the presentation, we participated as well, along with the in-room participants.

While I do "miss" not registering for OLC innovate, these 2 sessions yesterday were more fulfilling and satisfying than any other virtual conference participation experience to date. It's not the quantity that matters, but the quality of interaction.

Your thoughts?

sidenote: for the people at the table during the hybridity session - feel free to connect on twitter and linkedin :)

Finally!  I've made it to the end of the book!  It only took me nine months to do so (a couple of chapters each month?) but it's finally done!  This will be my final review of chapters in Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Strategies and Predictions for the Future.  I was going to write two separate blog posts about this, one for each chapter, but I've sort of run out of steam, and I have a sense that I will be writing the same (or similar things) for the last two chapters. Today under the microscope are chapter 11, which is titled MOOCs: Evolution and Revolution, and Chapter 12 which is titled The Evolution of Online Learning and Related Tools and Techniques toward MOOCs. It should be noted that there is actually a chapter 13 and 14, but I had received those to review before I got this book, and I've written briefly about them, sometime last year - so no rehash in this post.

The abstract for chapter 11 is as follows:

This chapter introduces the evolution of the MOOC, using narratives that are documented by research generated from the educational community. It concentrates on the history and progression of distance learning and its movement toward online education. The authors' perspectives focus on their own anecdotal evolution, from traditional classroom teaching, infusing distance and online learning, to designing and teaching in a MOOC setting. In examining whether the MOOC is more of an evolution or a revolution in learning, they explore questions that have emerged about MOOCs including what distinguishes this model from other online offerings, characteristics of learners who succeed in this environment, and debates regarding best practices. Critical reaction and responses by proponents of this learning format are presented and acknowledged. The research, perspectives and debates clearly impact what the future of the MOOC appears to offer. This continues the discussion within the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,' aligning to the discussion on the topic of ‘educational training design.'

The abstract for chapter 12 is as follows:

The latest development in the online learning environment, Massive Open Online Courses, dubbed ‘MOOC,' has garnered considerable attention both within and without the academy. This chapter discusses tools and technologies that can support the development of a MOOC, and concludes with commentary about the potential for such a development to continue into mainstream postsecondary education. This chapter delivers a small yet meaningful contribution to the discussion within the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,' aligning to the discussion on the topic of ‘educational training design.'

For me, chapter 11 seemed lengthy (which isn't bad) but it has sparse citations.  Granted, the abstract tells you as much -that this chapter is the author's anecdotal perspectives on the evolution of the MOOC, but I guess I expected something more than that.  See, when I sit here and blog, whoever reads this blog knows that I am generally responding or reacting to something I've read or experienced.  So, when I write about something there is usually some sort of link to that original something.  On the one hand I did like this chapter's look back at educational technology, and specifically looking at the minitel system and how that was applicable to language learning here in the US - historical details like that don't seem to be acknowledged in our EdTech world of today and some of us seem to be suffering from memory loss in this experiment quickly and fail-fast world. I think there is value in knowing about the past and what those heuristics, affordances, and capabilities were (especially for systems that no longer exist).  That said, I really don't think think this chapter was well researched (makes sense since this was mostly anecdotal), and to me that doesn't provide a lot of value, especially since the list price for this chapter is around $38 US.  Furthermore, the authors seem to be hyper-focused on worries about cheating MOOC, which to me seems like a non-issue. There are articles in open access journals that do a better job than this chapter with the same theme.

In Chapter 12, on the other hand, the chapter was very brief.  In this chapter the technologies used to support a MOOC might as well be technologies that support regular, "traditional" online and distance education. I really did not see a convincing  differentiation between MOOCs and the traditional, for-credit, online learning environment.  I did like the little section that the authors wrote on getting the MOOC publicized and having people sign up for it because I know I haven't seen this elsewhere. So, for a novice in MOOC this might actually be valuable. Again, though, this was only a small part of the chapter.

All things considered, I am glad I read this book, but I really didn't come away with seeing the value in it, include those who are novices at the MOOC. I'd personally prefer to curate the equivalent amount of chapters from open access journals and people's blog posts and package that as a perspectives on MOOCs volume. I hope I am not being too harsh :-)

Chugging along (hey I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!) with my review of Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Strategies and Predictions for the Future, which started some time last year.  Today under the microscope is chapter 10, which is titled Redefining the Classroom: Integration of Open and Classroom Learning in Higher Education.  The abstract is as follows:

The printing technology revolutionized the dissemination of knowledge at a pace never conceived of earlier. In recent times, radio and television brought education within the reach of masses. More recently, the multimedia technology, and Internet have revolutionized the delivery of education. Top universities of the world have collaborated to develop massive open online courses (MOOCs) that are made available to public either free of charge or at a nominal cost. Mainly supported by start-ups such as Coursera, Udacity, and EdX, MOOCs are mostly created by universities in United States and Europe. This essay reviews the impact of these changes on higher education using available reports, articles, and meta-analyses. Although there is no conclusive evidence of the impact of MOOCs, there is a strong possibility of MOOCs leaving a lasting mark on the traditional higher education system. This chapter falls within the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,' aligning to the discussion on the topic of ‘educational training design.'

This chapter made me do a double take, and I started questioning my underlying assumptions of what type of book I was reading, which prompted me to go back and re-read the mission of the book.  This chapter is a review of online and distance learning, in general, with a specific emphasis on MOOCs.  It's not a bad chapter, and it does fit in with the mission of the book. My own particular use for it might be as an introductory reading to online and distance education, with a little information about MOOCs if I were not feeling up to creating my own slides for a lecture. Even as an introductory text though, I'd take it with a grain of salt, perhaps asks students to not only read it, but go out and find information about the topic of MOOCs and supplement - and question - what this text provides.

There are three things that really stood out for me in this chapter:

1. You're citing wikipedia?!  Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people who are of the mindset that you must never ever cite, or even use, wikipedia; but come on!  You're used wikipedia to cite Distance Education! As of today that article has  83 cited sources! You couldn't look at the sources and see what is available for you to dig a little deeper and get a definition of Distance Education from a source like the Handbook of Distance Education?

2. Someone with a background in learning, educational technology, or instructional design should have proof-read this and provided feedback to the authors (all of whom seem to be in computing sciences of one form or another). Some things are just plain wrong.  One of their claims, under the MOOC Pedagogy section is that "The teaching and learning theory and practice of xMOOCs has been termed Instructional Systems Design (ISD)" (p. 174).  Now - granted, this IS cited, so the error may have originated elsewhere (or maybe it's an error in the author's understanding), but this is just plain wrong.

3. The article at time lacks direction and it seems like they tried to fit in even the kitchen sink.  Academic Partnerships are mentioned as a MOOC provider (which they are not), they discuss, briefly, the Minerva Project, which is interesting, but I am not sure how it fits in, and they discuss blended learning - in general.  At the end, I really failed to see the impact that MOOCs have had on higher education through this article. It wasn't bad - I just expected more.


Thoughts?

This morning, while commuting, I was able to read through another chapter in the book titled Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Strategies and Predictions for the Future, which I started back in August of 2015 (or somewhere there about).  This time I am reviewing chapter 9, which is titled Deceptive Promises: The Meaning of MOOCs-Hype for Higher Education.  The abstract is as follows:

Since 2011, massive open online courses (MOOCs) fired the imagination of the general public as well as the academics, university administrators and investors alike. This chapter is an analysis of the main promises and expectations associated with MOOCs in higher education. This analysis is largely informed by a literature review of new extensive research reports, press releases, media articles, scholarly blogs and academic papers. Considering costs and benefits, ethical aspects and the impact on the landscape of higher education, the author explores whether MOOCs stay consistent with their initial promises and rhetoric. This chapter continues the discussion on the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,' with the particular focus on the topic of ‘educational training design.

I think that this is actually a chapter that's worthwhile reading! I think that it fits in well with the work that Rolin Moe, Markus Deimann,  and Panagiotis and I, published in CIEE volume 2, issue 1. The author of this chapter writes about the failed promises of the (x)MOOC and how the (EdTech?) reality distortion field that was prevalent at the time really brought many universities into the (x)MOOC arena without much planning for fear of missing out (FOMO).  This article was much better written critique than the Meisenhelder articles published in the NEA journal Though and Action titled MOOC-mania.

I think that the critiques of the author are valid, and this researched essay (position paper?) really lays out the perfect (reality distortion) storm that brewed up between 2011 and 2013.  While it is a worthwhile read, I wouldn't consider it as the only source of MOOC critique and issues†.  I think that there are two big issues that stood out for me.  The first issue is that the author just writes about MOOCs.  He makes no distinction between the various types of MOOCs, and the various rationales for starting the MOOC. xMOOCs were by no means the first MOOC, that honor goes to the connectivist MOOCs that started around 2008 and continued until this mania hit.  The connectivist MOOCs didn't necessarily seek to democratize education, whatever that may mean.  Sure, they were open resources and they were available to anyone who could connect with them, but - from my own readings and experience - that's not how they started.

Relating to this, I don't like the connotation of the title, specifically the deceptive part.  When someone is deceptive, they are intentionally so.  There is an agency behind deception, and there is some goal or gain to be hand.  While the xMOOC does definitely have issues, I don't think that the actors in the xMOOC arena (Kohler, Ng, Agarwal, Thrun, et al.) were deceptive in their practices or even their means.  I think that the Stanford crew were swept up in the unexpected popularity of those two experiments that they ran and they mis-stepped, and mis-spoke.  For Agarwal, on the other hand, it seemed like a natural extension of their previous effort - open courseware.  Maybe I am being naïve, after all I wasn't behind closed doors when this was all conceived, but I am less convinced that this was all a planned, deceptive, practice from the start.

The other thing that doesn't quite sit well with me is the economic aspect.  I got a sense that a major underlying current as to whether a faculty member or institution adopts MOOCs is the economic factor (rather than something more substantive like pedagogical factors).  While I think that jumping head-first into something you know little about is not wise (and often discouraged!), I do think that the sustainability argument, or rather the "will this make us money, increase enrollments, increase x, y, z revenue", is a false one.  As an IHE you certainly don't want to bleed money.  You can only do that for a certain amount of time until you go our of business.  However,  I don't see MOOCs, or other types of OCW and other types of OER, as revenue generators.  What you do in class, in a small seminar, or "regular" 20-student class does not show in a MOOC.  You can't treat OER as a window into your courses and your programs. It just doesn't work that way.  What should be considered are the synergies between traditional paid-for education and free open courses. There is no reason why these two cannot co-exist and support one another.  There are some ideas I have about this - but subject to another blog post - this one is getting lengthy.

Did you read this article? What did you think?



NOTES:
† see previously references articles as samples of others writing in the same field

With the semester (almost) over it's the return of the crankypants reviewer (hmmm... maybe I should get that as a badge and use it for all of my article reviews ;-) ).  Anyway, my goal this month is to finish reading the edited collection titled Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Strategies and Predictions for the Future, which I started back in August of 2015 (or somewhere there about).  This time I am reviewing chapter 8, which is titled What is Best for the Learner?: Are MOOCs the Answer?  The abstract is as follows:

Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs are increasing in use by universities, corporations and other organizations. The quality of instruction and learning is an ongoing topic of debate as to whether MOOCs are effective for learning. What is best for the learner is determined by multiple factors. This chapter looks at what is best for the learner and whether MOOCs are the answer. The authors examine each of the factors that impact what is best for the learner. Each of the factors (accessibility, cost to the learner, quality of instructional design, learner performance, and acquiring on-line collaboration methods and resources) are described and are followed by a discussion of the issues, controversies and problems associated with each factor. This chapter takes up the discussion on the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,' with the particular focus on the topic of ‘educational training design.'

I guess my first question to the question "are MOOCs the answer?" is what's the question? There is also a question on what's best for the learner which I find a little odd.  Learners are not one uniform mass.  While we are all unique in some way, there are some aspects that can be generalized in some cases.  Still, this doesn't mean that one can determine the best anything for all learners. This is what I found a little odd from the onset of this article.

In any case, the article looks at five areas, which are and issues and controversies with those areas. Those areas are:

• Accessibility
• Cost to the learner
• Quality of instructional design
• Learner performance
• Acquiring online collaboration methods and applying resources currently used in today's workplace

Given that, MOOCs are almost completely immune to rigorous investigations with regard to how they function as a means of facilitating learning because there is not pre-test or post-test.

This is wrong. Having pre- and post-tests does not mean that your investigation is rigorous and lack of pre- and post-testing does not mean that your investigation is not rigorous. It seems like there is a basic lack of understanding about research and how its done.  Either that...or they just subscribe only to quantitative and positivist views of research.  Either way, they are wrong ;-).

There are of course other things wrong with this article.  The accessibility category talks mostly about access to the course (free to access from anywhere) and not about real accessibility.  To be fair, they do speak a little of accessibility but it feels tacked on.  When they speak of instructional design they really are speaking about instructional approaches and not a lot about design, and they mention private MOOCs as an option - which aren't really MOOCs.

In the end, the authors write that:

Perhaps the best recommendation we can offer is for learners to select courses and learning experiences that meet their needs.

Oy....

Alright, so here it is, week 6 of NRC01PL. Even though I am technically in the same week as everyone I guess I am still marching to the beat of my own drummer.  I wanted to join the live session on Tuesday, but other things intervened.  Oh well.

The topic of this week is the personal learning assistant.  Hence my little callout to the four major virtual assistants (Siri for Apple, Alexa for Amazon, Cortana for Windows, and Google...for Google). I actually did try asking Cortana to "show me something to learn" but  I guess the bing search engine didn't know what the heck to do with my query. Google wasn't that much help either.  We haven't reached the point yet where they know enough about me in order to recommend something.  It's a little odd given how much data google probably "knows" about me.

So, what is a Personal Learning Assistant (not to be confused with Personal Assistant for Learning)?  According to Stephen the PLA is a platform that  (1) provides a convenient interface for the user to perform the task (of learning), (2) the platform treats each user interaction as a training example (think amazon recommendation engine); and (3) it learns general regularities from this training data (think google knowing where my home and work are based on how much time I spend at locations, and during what times).

Another thing that Stephen mentioned was something called Business Oriented Personal Learning Agents (reminds me a lot of my HR and KM days). Some components of this are (1) human learning profiles across demographics (meaningful demographic, not the silly stuff that we fill out), (2) integration of operations and training databases; (3) unbiased evaluation of performance (I assume this is by your manager); (4) development of enterprise learning profiles and patterns of learning and action; (5) making training available in multiple modalities (and multiples providers and sources).

This seems like something that is quite interesting from a work perspective.  The one concern I have about this is data lock-in.  In days past people used to stay with one company for a big part of their career.  Learner data-lock-in would not be such a big issue if you're someone like me (at the same institution for close to 20 years now), however if you're like some of my classmates, you've worked for at least 3 different companies in the last 10 years.  Having an internal gauge of how employees are doing, what they need to learn, and how effective that learning is great. It helps corporate instructional designers and talent developers do their jobs more effectively.  However, I do think that this data does also be long to the learner, as it forms part of their lifelong learning record.  If they leave that company, and if the data is proprietary (or under some sort of NDA) then that, to me, is a bit like a brainwipe (at least a partial one) for the learner's record. If there is a need to keep some information compartmentalized due to NDAs and a company's competitive advantage, then I'd like to see an appropriately scrubbed and generalized learning record exported concurrently to the learner's preferred performance and assistance platform.
Finally, when we're thinking about the personal learning assistant, I am reminded a lot of the Knowledge Navigator (see video at the bottom).  While this was meant to be a concept for PDAs, I think we're still seeing a lot of this vision coming to fruition today with our connected devices.  I think the PLA also falls into this category.  The problem, as I brought up in my previous blog post, is that we have a lot of data about us out there, but they are inaccessible to a central platform of device that crunches all of that into something that is useful for the learner.

I have a feeling this might be in my dreams in about 12 months ;-)