As I mentioned yesterday, I am attending the
Online Teaching Conference held at Long Beach City College. This report covers the keynote speech presented by
Stephen Downes, specialist in online learning, new media, pedagogy and philosophy, and one of the two individuals who designed and instructed the first MOOC. Here are some of the highlights.
What is a MOOC?
MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Course. While parts of this acronym seem self-explanatory, I like how Stephen Downes went deeper into the meaning of each term, since it really added clarity to its original mission and character. Stephen joked (though I think he was serious) that a student accused him of being a techno-socialist, and this is why:
M is for Massive.
Massive does not imply the number of students enrolled, but rather the capacity to handle an extremely large number of students. The first MOOC was created with foresight; the infrastructure was designed to support massive numbers of students. Stephen emphasized that broadcasts are not MOOCs even though they are intended for massive audiences; a true MOOC involves interaction and engagement as opposed to one-way communication.
O is for Open.
When Stephen Downes explained "open" he offered a poignant definition: Open does not just mean that the course is available to the public. Rather, it is truly free. Anyone is able to attend at any time without registering, submitting credit card information, or purchasing supplies, subscriptions, or equipment. Course materials are open-source or open-licensed. Internet is needed, but in many communities, internet can be accessed for free from libraries. Language is also not a barrier; individuals can participate in their own language, and they do. Free tools like Google Translate could be used to help speakers of different languages communicate with one another.
O is for Online.
This one was self-explanatory.
C is for Course.
This was mostly self-explanatory, except for one key point; the course Stephen Downes described is one in which the core of the learning process takes place through the interaction between participants. This definition is in stark contrast to teacher-centered instructional styles such as lecturing, where an expert basically fills "empty vessels" with his or hew knowledge. In Stephen's MOOCs, students and instructor alike bring their experiences, creations, ideas, questions and observations together to enhance and deepen the learning experience for everyone. Stephen went on to explain how connectivism was the founding philosophy of the original MOOCs (which are now referred to as cMOOCs, to differentiate from xMOOCs, represented by Coursera and edX.)
What is Connectivism?
In a nutshell, the connectivist philosophy has four components:
Aggregation:
Knowledge and information is aggregated by the students and instructor through research and creation, as opposed to traditional courses where material is developed ahead of time.
Remixing:
Materials are reorganized through correlating and comparing with other materials found online and in the course.
Re-purposing:
The aggregated and remixed materials are then re-purposed on an individual basis; students collect, reinterpret and re-purpose knowledge based on their individual goals.
Feeding Forward:
Participants are encouraged to share their re-purposed materials, which are their personal conclusions and interpretations of the information researched, assembled and critically-studied during the course.
Concluding Thoughts.
Other, (arguably less altruistic) variations of MOOCs developed over the past few years, but Stephen Downes' variation is one that can change the future of education in a positive way. Along with Open Educational Resources (OER), MOOCs have the potential to democratize education and help break down the socioeconomic barriers that make it difficult for students from the lower socioeconomic strati to advance in their lives and careers. I also agree that in light of this paradigm shift, we need to rethink how we define "success" in education. Rather than having an across-the-board measure of success, perhaps we need to weigh against the goals of the individual students. Through diligent research, we may find general trends that can help administrators quantify success, while staying true to the students' objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment