Learning on MOOCs

Back to writing my blog after some time writing different types of papers and having been 'up to my elbows' in data, yes MOOC data, to make sense of the learning processes on PLENK2010. Helene Fournier and I have been quite busy over the past months analysing data and writing papers and preparing presentations, which we will post here as they are being published.

The post by Martin Weller on the responsibility of learners in a MOOC, and the comments to it, has made that it seems time to write some of the findings of our research here. The issues I found most interesting in the PLENK data relate to Martin's point on responsibility of the learner, the nature of active participation on MOOCs, the factors affecting active participation and how people on PLENK experienced their participation.

From the data (that we collected using qualitative and quantitative methods) it was clear that there are a number of issues that stand out.

1.  Power relations on the MOOC
2. Confidence levels of novice MOOCers
3. The level of presence of participants and facilitators
4. The willingness to help by all involved.

Participants felt they had a new responsibility to actively participate  in new ways: eg. by aggregating resources, by RSS or Twitter, to do something with these resources, but not necessarily in the way that the facilitators would have hoped for, by actively producing something. The majority of participants (1580 were not really big producers, there were only around 60 people who did this) shared resources with other participants, but also with people outside the MOOC. The level of creative production very much depended on the level of confidence of the participant and the the amount of time the participant had to invest on learning in the MOOC.

I have included here a link to the slidecast of a presentation I gave of a paper on New Dimensions to Selfdirected Learning on Open Networked Learning Environments, that Helene Fournier and I  prepared for the 25th International Self-directed Learning Symposium that was held in Cocoa Beach, Florida earlier in February.

Feeling uncomfortable with Personal Knowledge Management

Harold Jarche illuminated participants on #PLENK2010 on his ideas of Personal Knowledge Management on Friday. The way he sees it seems to boil down to doing something with information in an effective way: share it and/or action it.  Vlimaka on Cryselina linked some of the readers of the week in an interesting way to what Harold had to say and made the connection between PKM and Knowledge Management in organizations and how the two might compare.

I have some problems with Knowledge Management and even more so with the term Personal Knowledge Management.

1. My first problem is that it gives me the jitters to see that another business term has crept into the social sciences. There have been widespread protests at the use of the word 'capital', to describe the value of our social, human and cultural interactions as human beings in terms such as 'social capital', 'cultural capital' and 'human capital' as it was suggested that in these more is at stake than monetary gain. Do we really have to call the way we organize our personal interactions with others and our creative actions which help us to transform information into knowledge management? Is there not a more inspirational term available? I would say 'enrichment', 'organization' or 'development' would already be better terms, or perhaps 'creation' or even 'control' but perhaps people in PLENK will be able to come up with a better term.

2. To me there also seems to be a tension between the words 'knowledge' and 'management'. In my idea of knowledge there is not much of it that you can manage. It is related to the problems Stephen Downes already saw in 2003 with knowledge management . Knowledge is not the same as information or data, which you can capture and store in systems.

Knowledge in my view is related to the context in which it emerges. Depending on your view of knowledge, it can be constructed, which makes that it is related to the earlier experiences and or knowledge of individuals or others in his or her surroundings. This makes that it would be hard to manage as it would be related to the context in which it is produced over which you don't have control.

It might emerge through a process of immersion, sharing on networks and actions related to information processing, eg. through blogging and receiving from and tweeting information and resources and artifacts on to other people in a connectivist view of knowledge, this makes the management of it even more problematic as knowledge would be embedded in the context in which it emerges, and span a person's mind, the people involved in the interactions and the tools used to carry out the actions and interactions. The only management you would be able to do is to ensure that the conditions to achieve knowledge development are being met, for instance by installing tools on your machine that allow you to  communicate, create artifacts, and push out the artifacts produced onto the Web, but to me these are the least significant in the knowledge creation process.

The only view of knowledge that I can see that would allow for management is the traditional view, where institutions such as universities who produce a high form of knowledge can chop it into bite size chunks, make these into course packages that instructors can pick of the shelf for the students to digest. And even there one would argue in a quality teaching situation, more will happen than the transfer of this managed knowledge; students would be expected to make connections with what they already know and information they find outside the institution, or with information and resources provided by the instructor. And there would be communication to share what is known. Learning outcomes might not quite be what the manager would have intended.

 What then about knowledge management in the workplace? What defines the current knowledge workers job? Here as example a description of 'portfolio' adult educators by Fenwick, that I think is also applicable to other workers today (2003, p.175):

'They are increasingly expected to adapt themselves to conditions of flexible jobs, flexible knowledge and skills and flexible work loctions . . .Within these flexibilised employment arrangements, a career has become an individual's responsibility, a lifelong human resource project crafted through the process of continuous reflexive self-assessment, continuous learning and adaptation and of course self-marketing.'

To me people's career and flexible knowledge once again mean that knowledge in the workplace is again related to the context in which it is generated; the workplace, the knowledge worker him/her self, the professional network. The only instance I can see related to the management of knowledge has to do with the optimization of work by employers, businesses and corporations. What are they to do when a valued worker leaves? How to capture what the worker has learned? Well, I would say they need to allow sufficient time between someone leaving and a new person to be appointed to ensure that work-related knowledge is not lost. There needs to be a process of enculturation and immersion of the new employee in the proximity of the leaving worker, but it seems in the work place of today time is not allowed for this.

So, what do I think of (personal) knowledge management?  No thanks, not for me!

A model of a PLE: Socratic questioning or connectivist participation in an information stream?

Maria Andersen presented at #PLENK2010 today. She discussed her ideas of a Personal Learning Environment. she proposed a new model of education, rather than to rebuild the old system. A revolution, rather than an evolution as she couldn't really see institutions changing very much.

Her ideas for a PLE are quite different from the connectivist model and this has in my view a lot to do with her view of knowledge. As a mathematician she still sees a place for a basic body of knowledge that can be built upon, while I think connectivists prefer to see knowledge as a mesh of interwoven connections at which learners  pull and push to give it shape by actively engaging with and in it.

She would like learning button where people could go to for answers to Socratic questions about a certain topic. Of course first a great number of people should be willing to ask the questions, but if enough people engage in it, a world of questions would be out there related to the interests of many people. She sees intrinsic motivation as the major driver to learning and envisages learners to want to engage to satisfy their natural curiosity. You can find a paper in which she elaborates on it here.

My guess is that connectivists will find the questioning too structured as people would not be in control of their own learning, and won't be actively engaged in producing artifacts. But if the pool of questions would be large enough in the fashion similar to the development of the wikipedia, and  reach a tipping point, the thing would start to lead a life of its own,  people would like to get involved and people would be able to see it as a bit of fun, some intellectual sparring.  I think it could work especially if semantic elements were to be built in, where questions would be suggested by friends, or recommended after engaging in earlier question and answer activities, and friends would be able to help out and give feedback on answers.

I can't wait for the first batch of questions relevant to me and my interests to appear in my PLE. I will have to wait a while for it, but not that long, I don't think! It seems that more and more people are interested in PLEs and their development.

PLE components on the climbing frame of learning

Hi all who responded to my post on the eXtended Web through #PLENK2010.

Several of you wondered how a recommender system might work and if it would make your search less rich rather than richer in the end. On the PLENK discussion forum several of you made some suggestions. And yes, you've hit the nail on the head. The problem with recommender systems is that someone puts the algorithm together that decides what is being recommended, and what has priority in the recommendation.

What I find most fascinating about developing a PLE is how these systems might be combined with 'human' factors. You can for instance have a recommender based on your earlier searches and learning activities, and add it as a 'smart' search' option in your PLE (so it doesn't replace, but is added to your usual googling). I would like to add an 'ask a critical friend' option, that would not give you the answer that you would get from the friends and aquaintances you would normally consult, but from people with an opposing point of view. A bit like the role of the quality teacher who wouldn't lead you to the easy answer, but who would lead you to another paper, another activity to carry out, to push you further in your thinking.

These might need to be connected to 'scaffolds' in the form of communications tools for instance, or reflective diaries, or tools to make you think about your self that would push you up the climbing frame of learning. I see learning not as moving from A to B, but up and down, and from left to right and back; not as the lineair pathway that (educational institution) administrators would like us to follow. It is more related to our activities and interests in life than a pre-defined curriculum; it would put tools in our hands that we would feel comfortable with in addition to connections to people we feel we could trust but who would challenge our beliefs and ideas. It would make us take action and dare us to take risks and leave our comfort zone; to take that next step into the unknown, but  still with some support; the level of which we will be able to determine ourselves. Wouldn't that be neat?

Contrasting Institutional learning with personal learning

All the posts and comments on the #PLENK2010 discussion board this week so far have given me something to think about. It was a conscious decision to put the subject of the week in the title of this post. It seems most discussion has revolved around the technical platform that an institution or a person might use, rather than on what these platforms actually mean in the learning of participants.

In my experience, and that is in a brick and mortar university, the LMS/VLE is mainly used to support the teaching and administration that takes place in the institution. The PLE/PLN is there to support learning. This different emphasis makes all the difference to me. Institutional learning is very much focused on what the teaching staff provides, rather than what students as autonomous learners can find for themselves. In my PhD research I looked at a crossover possibility, where within the institution over a two year period a slow transformation was created from highly supported learning and a directive teaching approach towards autonomy in a research project in which social media played an important role.

My research highlighed the importance of communication in learning to crate a high level of social 'presence'. An LMS/VLE is problematic in facilitating this.On the one hand teaching staff might meet students on a regular basis, so there might not be such a need for discussion board interaction, on the other hand major problems with power relations on discussion boards have been identified. Also. some people will perform well by not contributing much in discussions, but instead spend time in self-directed study away from the course site, while others perform well by communicating extensively with tutor and other learners. 

Nonnecke and Preece explain that when people are not participating in the discussion board (otherwise called ‘lurking’) this is not necessarily a bad thing: ‘Lurking is not free-riding but a form of participation that is both acceptable and beneficial to most online groups. Public posting is only one way in which an online group can benefit from its members’ (Gulati, 2003, p. 51). Research by Bedouin in non-participation in online discussion found that the people who were not very visible in the online classroom ‘spent most time reading assignments, reading others’ comments, web searches, writing assignments and spent less time on writing online messages’ (Gulati, 2003, p. 52).

Gulati’s research indicated that half of these learners identified themselves as self-directed learners, rather than social learners. The way people participate in online discussion depends, apart from a tendency to autonomous learning, also on a number of other factors as argued by Mann and also Levy. They posit that the openness in online dialogue and the power-relations within an online learner group are important issues in creating relations of trust within the online community (Mann, 2005; Levy, 2006). This resonates with Gulati’s research results that also identified that the power relations in the discussion forum influence participation. She found that confidence and affective issues were important aspects, while the level of knowledge displayed by some participants was also a determining influence on the level of participation and confidence of others.

I don't know how you experience the  use of discussion forums on this course as opposed to finding your own way of communication and collaboration on your own PLENK network, through the use of blogs, wikis, Twitter and other tools? My research showed that feedback from knowledgeable others in their learning was crucial to move on, develop and learn, but that it was not necessarily important that this other would be a university instructor. The level of presence was important, however. And  Dron and Anderson (2007) see a difference in presence and engagement in the learning activity if there is a high level of presence (that you can find for instance in a group on a course) but lesser so on a network with a looser structure and even lower on a collective, through applications such as flickr or delicious, where the connection with others is facilitated through tags.

This is clearly one of the major challenges in this MOOC as the numbers are high and the learner group is dispersed and participants might not speak the same language. I can already see though how it is not only the facilitators that provide feedback and support. The more this happens the more successful the learning I believe.

Dron, J. and Anderson, T. (2007) Collectives, Networks and Groups in Social Software for E-Learning, World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN) 2007, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

Gulati, S. (2003) Informal learning: Building an argument for Inclusive Online Learning, 2003 ATHINER Conference, Athens

Levy, P. (2006) Learning a different form of communication: experiences of networked learning and reflections on practice, Study in Continuing Education, 28,3, pg. 259-277

Mann, S. J. (2005) Alienation in the learning environment: a failure of community? Studies in Higher Education, 30, 1, pg. 43-55

Caught by the pulse of this learning event

Jenny called it the resonance and I just read a blog post, but can't remember whose it was, where it was called the pulse: this event has a momentum that really catches you; the participants, and also the facilitators. I presume I can't speak for any of the others, but this learning event has taken over my life. I find it addictive and hard to not check my #PLENK2010 Twitter stream at night and read some blog posts. I found myself watching a football match and at the same time writing a blog post for PLENK. The emails are streaming out of my inbox with queries and discussion topics that I would like to get talking about. Where will I find the time in the next 10 weeks to be involved in PLENK and to do other work?

I understand the feeling several of you have expressed of being overloaded; luckily I don't feel overloaded as I have carefully made selections of my readings and communications from the Daily and discussion board, but I do feel as if this event has caught me by the scruff of the neck (or is that not an English expression?) and its pulse has caught me.

This week we tried to define PLE and PLN and I think we have done that and more as we already started unpacking new aspects of the PLE/PLN debate, with discussions on information abundance and the attention economy, and blog posts and technologies to show what a PLE or PLN could look like. I liked some of the creative wording that materialized: 'The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time'; I could see the keyboards and hear the music. And other creative expressions in the production of videos and podcasts that has already taken place. The different language streams are also really good to see, but I wish I would be able to figure out what the Spanish posts have to say, which I can't, so I might have to invest some time as some did to use an online translation service to give me a gist of what went on there.

A new dimension will be added to the mix from next week: Every Wednesday  for the next nine weeks someone with expertise on the topic of the week will join the Wednesday session to provide us with a different focus to the debate and I look forward to next Wednesday with Martin Weller from the Open University in the UK and the topic of the week: Contrasting personal learning with institutional learning.

Thank you all for spicing up my working life this week and I hope we can keep the vibe of the conversation going next week.

Information abundance leads to restricted depth?

As a comment to Jenny's blog post on 'breadth versus depth - an illusion?'  in #PLENK2010 I have repeated here a short section of the literature review of my PhD thesis as I though it might bring some depth to the discussion adding literature on 'information abundance' and  'economy of attention'.:

Burkeman and Johnson wonder if we really want all this new information? They highlight that;

The end result of a perfect search world is that as fast as answers are generated and consumed, new questions come quicker, with the consequence that ignorance expands. . . What we know that we don’t know expands faster than what we know.  . . . there is this sense that the world is out there to be Googled. But linking from one thing to another is not the same as having something to say. A structured thought is more than a link.’

                                                                            (Burkeman & Johnson, 2005, p. 5)

Furthermore, Hagel explains that there are other problems with the information abundance and introduces the notion of the “attention economy”.

In an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate the attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.

                                                                                                      (Hagel, 2006, p. 1)

Hagel argues that the more information is available, the less time we have available to go into any depth when analysing the information. In addition, Goldhaber (1997) posits that, by using new technologies, we might end up chatting, but not necessarily about anything of substance. The abundance of information and the poverty of attention could be the cause of changes in thinking processes. If we compare the information behaviour of people in antiquity with current scholars, the former were able to spend their time contemplating minute details and perhaps discuss findings with a small number of people, while contemporary thinkers, if they make use of the Web, might be engaging with gigabytes of information and possibly communicate with a wide variety of people dispersed all over the globe simultaneously. Suggestions have been made that these new ways of working might influence our thought processes (Bauerlein, 2008; Armstrong, 2004). Dennis and Al-Obaidi (2010) for instance compare changes in modes of thinking and concepts through the new technologies with an “epistemic rupture”, while Greenfield problematizes Internet use as opposed to the book.

When we read a book usually authors take you by the hand and you travel from the beginning to the middle to the end in a continuous narrative series of interconnected steps. It may not be a journey with which you agree or that you enjoy, but none the less as you turn the pages one train of thought succeeds the last in a logical fashion.

                                                                                             (Greenfield, 2006, p. 1)                         

She argues how in traditional education teachers and tutors compare and contrast narratives with one another and help people with the building of a conceptual framework in doing so (Greenfield, 2006, p. 1; Greenfield, 2004). The Web is changing this linear process and of course not everyone uses books in the linear fashion she describes. New Internet-based ways of obtaining information, such as following hyperlinks, which are an integral part of the Internet experience, and the creation of knowledge by participation in informal, interactive online phenomena, in which people take part at their leisure offer opportunities for engagement in a wide range of subject choices according to one’s own interests. This offers learners the chance to follow their own learning journey in a manner suited to actively constructing knowledge and linking it to their own experiences in an autonomous fashion, while collaborating with others. Greenfield is concerned however, that if people do not have access to a robust conceptual framework developed over time with the help of knowledgeable others, they might have problems constructing knowledge (Greenfield, 2004).

The abundance of information on the Internet and other information sources have raised concerns about the feasibility for individuals to critically analyse all that is available to ensure reliability and validity and to manage the vast streams of information now available. Bauerlein (2008) even goes as far as arguing that the lack of attention span because of this overload of information and the different resources used today have created the “dumbest generation of Americans” to date. CIBER (2008) researched how people acquire information and how information behaviour has changed over time. They surveyed literature from the 1980s and 1990s and carried out primary research on internet based behaviour themselves and they found that “power-browsing”, the clicking of hyperlinks and the skimming of web pages,  replaced traditional chronological reading and longer term critical thinking. Advanced information searching was lacking and the level of information literacy, in the form of validating information and sources, was at a low level (CIBER, 2008).

Sandbothe argues that the ‘comprehensive and systematic development of reflective judgement at all levels of the population and on a global scale is the central task for a democratic educational system in the twenty-first century’ (Sandbothe, 2000, p. 67). This might not be promoted by the new ways of accessing information. Moreover, McKie emphasised that people, when they start an information search, will take into account the amount of time required for the search, where they expect to find the information and the route to take to get there. Not everyone uses the same route as people are different and have different learning preferences, cultural backgrounds and personalities. She argues that to give too much guidance would be a mistake as it would constrict the experience and the possibilities of finding the relevant information (McKie, 2000).

Walters and Kop (2009) argue that information literacy is acquired at a young age and highlight that “information behaviour” is a developmental process at a deep level and that this sort of behaviour will be very difficult to advance substantially later in life, eg. on a course at university. Bass, on the other hand, highlighted that there is a great deal of evidence to show that electronic environments encourage analytical and reflective practice. In addition, ‘there are clear indications that the electronic era will provide an unprecedented opportunity for immersion in archival and primary materials, and consequently the making of meaning in cultural and historical analysis for all kinds of learners, from novice to expert’ (Bass, 1999, p1.).

Bruce saw the information abundance as an advantage over earlier media in ‘the way it can open up our questions. We ask one thing, but the Web leads us to ask more questions and to become aware of how much we do not know’ (Bruce, 2000, p. 107). He would like us to use the Internet not to “pick and choose” what fits in with our own points of view, but also to take on board what discomfits, and to look for alternatives that make us think. It should perhaps be questioned if people will do this of their own accord or that they will need the guidance of an educator. He saw the greatest challenge as a change of our search strategies from looking something up, to incorporating web-searching into thinking and reflection processes in order to enable a fruitful investigation. 

New emerging collaborative tools that facilitate networking and communication with others might aid in developing such a referencing strategy. Also information aggregators could help with the organisation and streamlining of searches.In addition, PLEs that have 'smart' data analysing and recommending features could enhance searches to be relevant to the needs of learners and increase depth of reflection and thinking.

Another exciting open learning event will start on Monday!

I am really pleased to be involved in another connectivist course. A Massive Open Online Course on Personal Learning Environments, Networks and Knowledge this time; #PLENK2010. I was a student at CCK08 and CCK09 and was facilitator this year at a Critical Literacies course with Stephen downes, and I will also facilitate at this one on Personal Learning Environments, which promises to become another cracker. Already over 900 participants have enrolled and the last few weeks in Moncton have been frantic with anticipation and preparation to ensure a learning environment would be ready on time to accomodate such a crowd of learner

This time there will be four facilitators, Stephen Downes, George Siemens, Dave Cormier and I and that also promises to bring some spice to the online debate as from our pre-course discussions it has already become clear that we don't have the same views on learning; on how personal or how social it is for instance.

I really like the hustle and bustle of this type of courses and the initial confusion, which slowly moves towards clarity via lots of moments of excitement, insight and pure joy to be able to communicate worldwide with people who are interested in what I am interested in.

And this time the course is also part of the research that we at the National Research Council of Cananda here in Moncton are currently carrying out. We're trying to research and develop a PLE that forms a pedagogical platform on which people can truly learn; not just aggregate information. That is my challenge here, to ensure that that happens.

I see this course as a great opportunity to learn from participants what their ideas are of what a PLE should or could look like, but also of how they like to learn themselves and what tools and support mechanisms they would find helpful with that.

 http://ple.elg.ca/plenk2010/
Let it all begin!