http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_bUxNUSjZU&feature=youtu.be

I was convinced by rhizomatic learning – but selectively.  It is highly appropriate for those at the boundaries of understanding or expression – so university researchers, company strategists, experimental artists.  However, in the practical world, rhizomatic learning, and the behaviours resulting from it would be chaotic.  Imagine a company without processes (including ethical processes), a family without ‘house rules’, a country without laws.  Interactive chaos as a means of intellectual evolution is not a practical way of life – it would be rather like Lord of the Flies.  The most powerful forces tend to drive the agenda and they are rarely motivated by what is right for the majority.

As in software, I think most people in practical society need some version control.  It is difficult to organise if everyone has a slightly different version of what is normal.  So let the researchers enjoy rhizomatic learning (including user input as some of the ‘nutrients’ or ‘walls’ for development) but, for the rest of us, let us learn through one curriculum at a time.  Connectivism means that the period between versions will be increasingly short but the plateaus of stability are as important for operational value as  the regular spurts of progress.

Learning basic digital skills through use of a network is somewhat of a contradiction.  Hence, I have commented on Siemens’s key principles in the context of this most fundamental learning in a networked world.  In the developing world, the most basic of digital skills (keyboard, mouse, logging on etc.) have to be learned before more valuable skills (searching, publishing) can be developed.

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

A non-networked person will have been exposed to only a narrow range of opinions. Hence the acquisition of digital skills is an essential precursor to accessing a diversity of opinions. It is no surprise that repressive regimes limit access to diversity of information.

• Learning is a process of connecting specialised nodes or information sources.

However, a more fundamental learning is that of understanding that such sources exist and how to find them

• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

For the new digital entrant, most new learning will only come from non-human sources. They are more likely to access archived news feeds and static sites than human learning vectors such as blogs or tweets

• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.

This is critical in that what is currently known (from schooling or narrow, local experience) is likely to be out of date with future needs

• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

The is later than the first critical need which is to find relevant connections in the first place

• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill.

This is perhaps the most fundamental connectivist skill and will be new to those educated in a closed, didactic system. Developing own perceptions is a key new skill acquired through increased exposure to a variety of opinions and experiences.

• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

Currency only needs to be in respect of the relevant environment. If the environment is traditional then new, up-to-date knowledge may be interesting but irrelevant (though could be transformational for those with the power to transform).

• Decision making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision

True but may be lagged in a development environment.

Connectivism is a two edged sword in a development environment. Absence of a network will deny access to the rapidly accelerating changes in the developed world. Development of a network allows leapfrogging over the limitations of locally available knowledge. The Arab Spring was an example of the disruptive capability of a step change in access to information.

Development education has typically been characterised by scarcity.  Primary school education is not available to all, usually because of limited physical availability rather than by policy, conversion from primary to secondary is limited by secondary places, tertiary places are very limited and overbid.  Training for teachers is typically inadequate to meet policy demands.

In this climate, abundance of resources should be a benefit.  However, to use a shopping analogy, an abundance of formal clothes is of little value if you want a tee shirt.  The products are only abundant if you can access the online shop and have the skills to navigate it.

Limited or absent digital skills and the heritage of a rigid curriculum and didactic teaching system are the main problems.  Most teachers at school level are badly paid and many will have no electricity at home, let alone a computer.  Hence digital skills will have to become part of the teacher training curriculum or be learnt on school facilities.  However, IT facilities are usually controlled by the IT dept and their view of skills tends to be hardware and application driven (because these are in the curriculum), rather than relevant to external search and use of online tools.  The same is true for school pupils.  The development of SMART Knowledge Hubs in communities, outside the school system, is  being piloted in Tanzania to address this problem from an employment market perspective.

It is likely therefore that use of OER will only occur if driven centrally as part of the required curriculum, or as part of resources to support teaching of the curriculum.  This may be particularly true of more visual concepts, which might be supported by a DVD or an online demonstration.  Hence, at school level, the abundance of little OER may be relevant if it provides more options within the presentation of the curriculum .  Specialist providers such as the Commonwealth of Knowledge or South African OER sources are likely to be the most relevant contextual sources.

In tertiary education there is more scope.  Entry numbers are so small, and so restricted to academic high achievers, that one can assume a higher level of skills for those achieving entrance.  Curricula are also more open.  The recently announced discussions between Coursera and a Tanzanian university to enable incorporation of more market relevant material into courses indicates hope for value from the MOOC process into development education and ultimately into the economy.

During an H817open synchronous session on Personal Learning Networks last night I suggested that PLN and social media in general provided an outlet for intellectual personality. Let me develop that thought a bit.

In a blog last year Shankar (2012) suggested that personality was a combination of physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual components.  Because the intellectual component is typically only visible in problem solving, it is often (wrongly) evaluated through IQ.  This may be particularly true when the physical personality is not outgoing, hence intellectual ideas have little likelihood of expression or no obvious forum.

This does not mean that people have nothing sensible to say, merely that they are disempowered by their isolation from expressing their views.  In the context of adult entrants to Higher Education, O’Donnell and Tobbell (2007) suggested “Legitimate peripherality entails complex power relations. When peripherality is a position from which an individual can move forwards toward fuller participation, it is an empowered position. When peripherality is a position from which an individual is prevented from fuller participation, it is disempowering.”

My suggestion is that social networks provide a form of empowerment and voice for peripheral participants in education.  Historically, this voice was available only to the few through literary salons, debating societies or learned articles in the press.  In academia, the voice was available only to those with access to journals.  Those on the periphery with something to say might only be able to voice this to a tutor or to a narrow tutor group, for example through discussion of an essay.

The availability of social media and open courses changes all that.  Even the most timid lurker on an open course is likely to be able to identify participants or groups with whom s/he senses some common ground.  The asynchronous nature of most media means that contributions can be considered in depth before submission, reducing the perceived risk.

In the more robust forum of professional dialogue, social media are similarly empowering.  Weller (2012) stated “In terms of intellectual fulfilment, creativity, networking, impact, productivity, and overall benefit to my scholarly life, blogging wins hands down.”

So my suggestion is that social media, in complete contrast to their popular image as trivial gossip, can in fact be a conduit for the untapped intellectual personality of a large group of learners who have previously been disempowered by lack of access to debate or by their own reticence.

 

O’Donnell, V, and Tobbell, J (2007) ‘THE TRANSITION OF ADULT STUDENTS TO HIGHER EDUCATION: LEGITIMATE PERIPHERAL PARTICIPATION IN A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE?’, Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 312-328 [Online]. DOI 10.1177/0741713607302686 (accessed 12/04/13)

Shankar, R. (2012) ‘Vedantic Wednesday: Recipe for your personality!’ Blog posting 14^th March, Raj’s Lab [Online]. Available at http://rajshankar.wordpress.com/tag/intellectual-personality/ (accessed 12/04/13)

Weller, M. (2012) ‘The virtues of blogging as Scholarly Activity’ in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 April (online). Available from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Virtues-of-Blogging-as/131666/ (accessed 12/04/13)

I have looked at all four sites and find marked differences in style and approach between all of them.  The discussion below attempts to answer the questions on pedagogy, technology and philosophy but also debates to whom these courses may appeal, hence what the business models may be.

 

DS106 – a cMOOC model

Anyone worrying that the US will covertly take over the HE world via MOOCs can be re-assured by watching the intro video by Jim Groom.  The toe-curling ‘we are just a tech-savvy in-crowd having FUN’ would not seem remotely relevant to education in cultures taught through conventional didactic pedagogies.  They might think they had tuned to Friends by mistake!

Technology

The course seems to be technology focused and led.  The course objectives start as follows:

• Develop skills in using technology as a tool ……
• Frame a digital identity …..
• Critically examine the digital landscape of communication technologies …..

This appears the dominant emphasis.  The storytelling seems just to be a test of the communication options enabled and featured by the technologies used.

Pedagogy

Pedagogy is implicit not explicit.  Although words are used that imply some structure, no structure is described.  The first external comment below the intro starts: “I’d like to find out who would be teaching what…”.  The emphasis is on just jumping in and participating with an implicit social constructionist/connectivist approach to learning.

Philosophy

To be cool!  Hating Elluminate seems symptomatic of the establishment-denying ethos.

Business model

The course is a phenomenon; there would seem no lack of commercial interests who would like to target this high energy, poster-child group.  I am not sure how the University makes money except via deals with such interests?

 

Change MOOC – a cMOOC model

Technology

Not technology-led but still a large technical overhead to handle to get the most out of the course. Blogs, aggregators, forums, newsletters, synchronous forums all form part of the connectivity at the heart of the course.

Pedagogy

More explicit and explained, with the weekly lectures providing a ‘starting gun’ for each week’s interaction.  However the main pedagogy still appears to be social constructivist/conntectivist with no connecting narrative.

Philosophy

Still quite an in-crowd feel, though in this case a very academically focused group.  Expanding the boundaries of knowledge rather than transferring knowledge.

Business Model

Low costs with ‘home page’ structure built from generic tools and no ongoing course structure.  An academic model rather than a business model.

 

Udacity ST095 Statistics – an xMOOC model

Technology

Much more conventional.  Imaginative use of a “moving hand” style of presentation which maintained engagement.  Use of Google Docs to support interactive analysis and graphical presentation of data.  Encouragement to visit asynchronous forums.

Pedagogy

A world away from the cMOOCs, a much more conventional form of module presentation.  Didactic but with encouragement to engage in forums for a more constructivist approach.

Philosophy

Rather low key and approachable.  Low structure, no timetable, easy to enter.

Business model

Unclear.  Universities selling extra services for tutoring and accreditation and Udacity presumably shares in these.

 

Coursera – Introstats001 Statistics – an xMOOC model

Technology

Very conventional.  Talking heads and scrolling ‘Powerpoint’ style text.  Interactive tests.

Pedagogy

Very much like conventional distance learning. Structured with dates and deadlines.  Discussion forums and active wikis.  F2F ‘meet-ups’ for some courses/locations.  Structured assessment with marked quizzes and assignments. Statement of accomplishment for 81% pass rate within date deadlines.

Philosophy

A cautious approach. Seems designed to attract learners who want conventional formal teaching with option of some credible certification.

Business model. 

Again not clear.  Less emphasis on selling value-added services with peer assessment used for accreditation.

 

Two clear groups with very little in common between the cMOOC and xMOOC approaches apart from their scale and openness.  Interesting variations in approachability and styles of presentation.  None of the business models were clear.

For:
Access to different point of view
Access to broader range of resources than available locally
Development of digital skills
Development of Personal Learning Network

Against:
Risk of US domination of HE content
Much content first world focused with inappropriate assumptions
Risk of importing first world view of developing world
Inadequate digital skills to cope with cMOOC or maybe even with xMOOC
Limited access to equipment and adequate broadband network

So a ‘catch 22’ of opportunity limited by existing inexperience and opportunity/risk balance of dependence on free external sources.  Maybe a locally tutored and assessed overlay on international content would be a good compromise, with intensive support on digital skills and navigation.

I am looking at this as a potential consumer in an East Africa development education environment.  The characteristics of the environment are:

• Strong state control, little local autonomy
• Fixed curriculum, text books, didactic pedagogy in primary and secondary education
• Small but well developed tertiary education
• Low level of personal access to PCs/net, improving level of school access to PCs/bandwidth
• Significant differences between urban and rural access to technology
• High mobile ownership, low smartphone ownership
• Strong personal improvement culture, outside formal education

Typical Big OER is going to be a difficult fit with this environment:

• Most units will have been produced for a western/developed audience
• The content will make a lot of assumptions about existing knowledge, resources, web access
• Most content will be aimed at HE, which is arguably the least needy part of the ‘market’

There are two sources of Big OER which are likely to add value:

• Material from specialists such as Commonwealth of Learning (e.g. http://www.col.org/resources/crsMaterials/osoer/Pages/default.aspx)or South African sources (e.g. http://www.oerafrica.org/, http://projects.siyavula.com/history/) which will have been produced with the needs of the target market in mind
• Material produced or intermediated by local universities (e.g. http://www.acde-africa.org/sources-oer).  The context will be more relevant but there may be a mismatch in level between producer and consumer

This material may be most useful for ‘self improvers’ beyond the state secondary provision and/or to fill gaps in education for those who were not able fully to access formal education.  Individual units may be useful as revision or for enhancement of curriculum topics but are unlikely to replace textbooks as the core interpretation of curriculum into teaching materials.

Little OER may be able to support but not replace traditional sources for some areas of curriculum.  Typically the curriculum is delivered through use of prescribed text books but these are often out of date or are not available in many schools.  There is scope to support defined topics (e.g. theories in geometry, visual support for Geography) with resources produced elsewhere.  This may provide a richer learning experience than the textbook approach alone.  However, it will be important not to create a mismatch between teaching and assessment.  While assessment is still largely a memory and ‘fill in the gap’ test, it is important that these facts are still taught and not entirely replaced by a more enquiry based approach.  Teachers will continue to be conscious of how they are assessed themselves and will tend to default to the way they have been taught, and taught to teach.  Significant support both from Headteachers and from the government (who employ and deploy all teachers) will be necessary to encourage use of OER as supplementary teaching materials.

The model was not explicit for any of the platforms.  Using model summaries of:

•  MIT – centrally controlled, own content, large own staff
• USU – more distributed within USU, own content, small own staff
• Rice – fully distributed, distributed content, coordinated cooperative venture

I would judge the candidates as follows:

•  Change MOOC – Rice model
• Coursera – MIT model
• Jorum – mix of MIT control with Rice content approach
• OpenLearn – Mostly USU approach with some MIT characteristics

So Wiley’s model seemed reasonably fit for purpose, as long as mixed models are allowed.  The aspect which was least clear was the extent to which these ventures were ends in themselves or were designed to draw potential paying students towards their hosts (except for Rice model).

To clarify the starting position, my unique creations are automatically protected by copyright.  So, if I want them to be more freely available, without special permission, I have to allocate a licence.  Using the Creative Commons choices I have to make choices on attribution, commercial use, derivatives and share alike.

My context (for this discussion) is the support of schools in Africa with online learning materials.  The ultimate objective is to improve education in  Africa.  So as long as this is achieved, I shouldn’t mind how.  I also have to look modestly at what I am likely to be able to achieve – not a lot of absolute value, more the work required to make something available than the inherent value of the content.  So it is unlikely that anyone is going to make much money from selling my materials commercially, because there will be free or better materials available   Those who do make money may in fact be aiding the distribution by recovering some costs/added value of getting the material a wider audience.

Commercial use.  As implied above, I am unlikely to be able to make much licence income and want to incentivise the distribution of the content.  So I should allow commercial use without further permission (broadly following the arguments in Moller, 2005).

Derivatives  For maximum value I should allow derivatisation.  However, since this will be outside my control, I may not want attribution of the result.

Attribution.  As above, I am not sure that the mix of derivatisation and attribution is attractive.  However all the CC mixes assume BY unless you are going for no rights at all.

Share alike.  Logically, I would want to encourage others to follow low restriction routes which are likely to enhance end user value.  So share alike whould seem to make sense.

This leaves me with BY-SA, the open software or Wikipedia type of licence which sounds an attractive place to be.  If it was something I treasured and felt was vulnerable to abuse via derivatisation I would probably go BY-ND (which seems to include SA by its nature).

To make life very simple, ‘no rights reserved’ would not seem an unreasonable place to be unless I felt strongly about the attribution issue.

Moller, E. (2005) The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons – NC License [online]. Available at http://freedomdefined.org/ Licenses/ NC  (accessed 31 Mar 2013)