5 myths about MOOCs - The Times

Wow - the effortlessly scathing attacks on MOOC models continue, this time from Diana Laurilliard in timeshighereducation...

Mooc students spend the majority of their study time watching videos and reading. To aid understanding they join discussion groups with other students, and they take computer-marked tests that direct them back to material they have not understood. For feedback they exchange assignments with a partner and peer grade them against a set of criteria.

Not all MOOCs work in such an inflexible, behaviourist model. Sure, many MOOCs are overloaded with incessant (and very boring) lecture material (much of it delivered through internet video). These MOOCs are just badly designed and yes, many of them ARE American... The reality is that there's a lot of very very unprogressive learning and teaching being offered in the world, and now, unfortunately, some of this unprogressive lecturing is becoming globalised, migrating to the internet through the power of MOOC technology. Transferring bad lecturing to the web is not progressive education, it's just bad lecturing on the internet.

The so-called 'myth' of OER Open Educational Resources is also attacked in the article...

But the idea that “content is free” in education is one of several myths that have helped to inflate the bubble of hype. Yes, there is a mass of free material on the web. But for educational purposes, web content has to be curated by someone who knows how it relates to an intended learning outcome, and their work does not come free.

Absolutely! I agree! OER's do need to be carefully selected and it really helps when students are 'guided' through their learning project, with constant focus on Learning Outcomes. There's a cost (time, money, expertise) in terms of generating or creating the OERs as well. But there are other models for funding expert pedagogical curation and direction of direction. The potential of the MOOC model is that, used correctly, an expert lecturer can effectively reach, teach and guide a large cohort of interested learners.

Students can support themselves and each other through their learning journeys. The 25:1 student to tutor model mentioned in the article is, of course the optimum but... There are other models. The learning, teaching, assessment and feedback just need to be rethought, with a pedagogical shift away from behaviourist theoretical models and passive learning. Diana Laurilliard's arguments around MOOC participant dropout are the usual crazy, tired complacencies... A Duke MOOC, starting at 12,000, reaching 500 at halfway point. So what? Giving 500 students some teaching and learning benefit is still an incredible educational opportunity! Focus on the potential benefits, not on the downsides!

The model has value for professional development, providing a forum for the dissemination, discussion and development of up-to-date ideas. It could even be used to help academics, teachers and policymakers make technology work in education, and develop effective ways of tackling that huge unmet demand for higher education.

Absolutely! And I agree with the article's assertion that MOOCs can be problematic as an undergraduate learning and teaching model. I disagree with the rather snide end line...

But I have had many opportunities to observe that very intelligent people leave their brains behind when it comes to technology. The Mooc phenomenon is just further confirmation of that simple truth.

It's not about the technology! It's about the education! Technology is a tool, not a phenomenon.

MOOCs have great potential - they are NOT the solution for everything in education and they will not 'replace' conventional higher education. MOOCs can provide great learning for certain students, in certain discipline areas. I'm tired of people across education telling us that we can't do things!

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/five-myths-about-moocs/2010480.article

Animation MOOC Proposal

Finished an application today for a proposed IADT Animation MOOC entitled 'Animation - Beyond The Bouncing Ball'. The proposed MOOC would run on the iversity platform in Autumn 2013. The proposal says...

This MOOC is aimed at the thousands of individuals who’ve done some formal animation education or training, people who’ve been working in specialist areas of the animation industry and those millions of people worldwide who’ve learned their way into some aspect of animation through graphics, design or software.

Because of the specialised nature of animation and graphics industry and education, many people never quite understand how to become an Animation Author. This is especially true today, when internet video and digital technology allow us to reach global audiences – but we need concepts and ideas and we need to understand the responsibilities of broadcast authorship. And it would help if we could appreciate the value of Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice. And we want to have fun along the way! This MOOC will address all of those issues, in a fun and entertaining learning environment.

Proposal video available below... Click on image...

 

Flu and Moocs

I had such great intentions for the Easter break and then I was floored by some flu bug, completely flattened, felled to a persistently geriatric state. Two weeks on, and I'm realising that I'm still not recovered from the bout.

In the meantime, some excellent guidance on how best to exploit the wonders and potentials of moocs...

http://ryan2point0.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/10-hot-tips-for-moocers/

DQ's edcmooc final artefact

A final video artefact from David Quin for the Edinburgh University edcmooc.  Featuring video from inside the Chernobyl contaminated zone and making some observations about online education, dystopia and being human.

Does this mean I'm finished my second MOOC in a week? Not quite... But the edcmooc finish line beckons.

David Quin - TEL Online Article Critique Assessment

David Quin - Technology Enhanched Learning - Online Article Critique Assessment

‘MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses’ (2012) by C. Osvaldo Rodriguez

February 21^st 2013

Rodriguez, C. (2012) MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning [Online]. Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/?article=516 . [Accessed 20^th February 2013].

Introduction

I decided to review ‘MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses’ (2012) by C. Osvaldo Rodriguez. The article was published on the eurodl.org site by The European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. The article compares two types of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), concluding that the pedagogical models on the selected online courses differ greatly.

Summary

The first MOOC model described is what Rodriguez refers to as ‘Stanford AI’ (referring to a 2011 Stanford University course on Artificial Intelligence, CS221). The AI course operated on a ‘one to many’ model, using online video to convey the course content, and regular online exams to check student understanding.

The other MOOC model is what Rodriquez characterises as cMOOC, or connectivist MOOC. For the purposes of his study, Rodriguez examines four cMOOCs: Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08),  Personal Learning Environments, Networks, and Knowledge (PLENK2010), MobiMOOC and EduMOOC.

Rodriguez’s article clearly describes connectivism and does link to some excellent literature on MOOCs , the MOOC experience and on online learning. Rodriguez also makes some contentious observations about online learners. He makes clear distinctions between the two pedagogical models for online courses, concluding that one model is predominantly cognitive-behaviourist, whilst the other is connectivist.

Critique

The writing in Rodriguez’s article is rather cumbersome. I suspect it was originated in Spanish and the translation to English hasn't been kind. The article spellcheck has been unkind to Rodriguez too, leading to occasionally entertaining references...  'both types shear some common features' whilst 'tutors and facilitators bare very different roles' .

Rodriguez takes until page 11 (of 13) to describe the teaching and learning model for the Stanford AI MOOC.

“…the teacher or tutor played a very similar role close to that in conventional classes. In these cases tutors would give the lectures via video format, explain hints for the exercises, comment on the evolvement of the course, prepare the exams and using video read the questions and related hints. During what were called office hours, the tutor would answer selected question from a pool proposed and voted by participants. There was never a direct interaction of the tutors with the students.”

In contrast, Rodriguez defines the PLENK2010 model (page 4, para 7) as connectivist…

“materials and course content were defined by participants as the course progressed, rather than prior to the course by instructors. Though the course outline defined a set of selected topics, they only served as indications for an iterative process of search, practice and reflection.”

- Rodriguez's conclusion (page 1 para 6) is “…although they share the use of distributed networks the format associated with c-MOOCs, which are defined by a participative pedagogical model, are unique and different from AI. We further assign to the AI to a cognitive-behaviourist (with some small contribution of social constructivist) and MOOCs to connectivist pedagogy.”

Once again, I think it's important to frame the potenitals of DE models within what Rodriguez calls (page 1 para 5) 'a well-rounded educational experience'. The open models permit students to participate at many stages in their lifelong studentship, testing their reaction to pedagogy or to subject matter, bringing skills up to scratch or supplementing more 'conventional' learning.

Rodriguez offers some very useful descriptions (page 1 para 3) of the “explicit principles of connectivism (autonomy, diversity, openness and interactivity) and on the activities of aggregation, remixing, repurposing and feeding forward the resources and learning”. On page 4 para 2, Rodriguez quotes Kop & Hill (2008) “In connectivism, the starting point for learning occurs when knowledge is actuated through the process of a learner connecting to and feeding information into a learning community. Connectivism stresses that two important skills that contribute to learning are the ability to seek out current information and the ability to filter secondary and extraneous information”.

Rodriguez is perhaps at his weakest in his discussion (page 2 para 8) of 'dropouts and lurkers'. I'm not sure that Rodriguez understands the deeply pejorative nature of both words, but especially of the word 'lurker'. The inference is that lurkers are socially dysfunctional, that they linger in the learning spaces, observing other students in a most questionable and unhealthy manner. In fact, the only true 'lurker' in this instance was Rodriguez himself, because he was participating in the online courses but was simultaneously observing the behaviour of other students for his research purposes. On page 8 (bottom paras) Rodriguez trots out his lurker definition. “Lurker is a term used to define a participant that just follows the course, looks at the recordings, and browses the available course resources. He is mostly behind the scenes waiting for some interesting event.”

He cites 'dropout rate' as one of the most puzzling issues for educators, pointing out that up to 85% of registered cMOOC participants and 40% of the AI course students fail to complete the online courses.

Curiously, all four of the cMOOCs studied by Rodriguez had online education or mobile education as their subject. One observation was telling (page 8 para 7) “Participants in c-MOOCs were mainly employed professionals in education, research and design, and development of learning opportunities and environments. They were teachers, researchers, managers, mentors, engineers, facilitators, trainers, and university professors.” This is borne out by my current experience on Edinburgh University’s (2013) Coursera edcmooc, where 50% of the participants are professional educators.

In contrast to Rodriguez's persistence with the pejorative 'lurker', I prefer Clark Quinn's (2012) ideas about 'solo' learning which are paraphrased on page 12 (para 2) “he clearly finds a distinction between the solo approach and the social approach to learning. He defined the Stanford AI course as a set of videos, some online interactive exercises, and tests, as being predominately solo. The learner works by himself with the material.”

Quinn continues “The connectivist MOOCs, on the other hand, are highly social. The learning comes from content presented by a lecturer, and then dialog via social media, where the contributions of the participants are shared. Assessment comes from participation and reflection, without explicit contextualized practice. The downside of the latter is just that, with little direction, the courses really require effective self-learners. These courses assume that through the process, learners will develop learning skills, and the philosophical underpinning is that learning is about making the connections oneself.”

This brings us back again to Anya Kamanetz's EduPunk ideas about online learners. ‘Being self-motivated and having good time management skills are absolutely essential for success along a DIY educational path.' As Clark Quinn says “As of yet, I don’t think that effective self-learning skills is a safe assumption (and we do need to remedy).”

Conclusion

Though his article is often cumbersome and makes some debatable observations about student lurkers and dropouts, Rodriguez must be commended on gathering a useful body of relevant research together. His descriptions of connectivist learning are very valid and he clearly defines the pedagogical differences between Stanford AI-style MOOCs and the more social and connectivist cMOOCs.

This is a useful article.

 References

Kamanetz, A., (2011) The Edupunks’ Guide To a DIY Credential. http://www.scribd.com/doc/60954896/EdupunksGuide Accessed on 200213.

McAuley, A.; Stewart, B.; Siemens, G.; Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf.

Quinn, C. (2012). Blog Learnlets – Mooc Reflections. http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=2562 ). Accessed 200213.

Rodriguez, C. (2012) MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning [Online]. Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/?article=516 . [Accessed 20^th February 2013].

Siemens, G. (2012a). Blog Elearnspace - Massive open online courses as new educative practice. http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/02/29/ Accessed 200213.

Siemens, G. (2002 onwards) Elearnspace.org. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/ Accessed 210213.

Siemens, G. (2012b). Blog Elearnspace - What is the theory that underpins our moocs?

http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/ Accessed 200213

end

#edcmooc

A video response to the first two weeks of the edcmooc...

More on The MOOC Learning Experience!

The edcmooc MOOC themes are very broad – this isn’t helped when the course team broaden the discussion further to include disputed historical texts like Prensky’s 2001 Natives and Immigrants article. Education and digital media are both in a permanent state of disruptive change – we're Teaching and Learning in a storm! The lines of argument are not clear. E-learners are coming from very different perspectives, with variable experience and all are shouting to be heard. It is exciting, but a little frantic. I found it threatening at first. Now I just find it exhausting! Another difficulty is trying to juggle the MOOC learning with ‘all other activities’. For many of us, the MOOC learning is taking place in some ‘hidden’ hours, in spare time which doesn’t really exist?

E-learning course teams tend to over-strategize and over-direct the learners. It’s understandable – they feel they can’t start a course without sufficient content! They need to fill the perceived pedagogical vacuum. But sometimes it’s necessary to put a learning challenge to the students, to truly allow them to construct their own learning. Then the course team can ‘guide from the side’. I once proposed that e-learning for many students (especially for students with little or no access to software/hardware/broadband) seemed like looting – the students’ dived in, grabbed the resources they could and then ran away (presumably to learn). The online experience is noisy, competitive and accelerated. Speed is important! We have the library or the quiet study room in mind when we think of learning spaces. E-learning finds it impossible to slow down, to create space for reflection - ‘reflection is not the default setting’ (a quote from MIT’s Peter Lunenfeld).

Response to Prensky’s (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

Prensky’s article is relatively old now (2001) and many of his ‘radical’ technological determinist contentions have been overtaken by reality. Back in 2001, it may well have been the case that ‘Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach’ (page 1, para 1), but education has moved on since then. Here, I will use Prensky’s terms Digital Native and Digital Immigrant for the purposes of response to his article, though I do not believe (now in 2013) in the clear existence of either.

On page 1, (para 4), Prensky asserts that ‘today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors’. He presents no evidence for this. Neither is it clear that students’ ‘brains have changed’. Prensky also assumes that only students have been changed by the digital! We must remember that many lecturers have been dealing with the digital reality for as long (or longer) than their students. Prensky might now (in 2013) have to admit that many lecturers are ‘digital natives’. Many of us do not print out our emails, nor do we use ‘the phone’ more than email, blogs, twitter, the web, youtube, digital production tools or distribution media.

The language of the pre-digital or Digital Immigrant Instructors is not necessarily outdated as Prensky contends (page 2, para 4). Much of that ‘pre-digital age’ language is called ‘human learning’ – it contains lessons going back to The Stone Age. Naïves (students, some lecturers, politicians and business people) often make such simplistic techno-determinist assertions when confronted with new technology – thus Bill Gates contends that Khan Academy is ‘the future of education’ etc.. The reality is that society must retain (and continue to provide) the best learning and lessons from the past. Without these lessons, humans at the very least are stuck in rather pointless and fruitless ‘reinventions of the wheel’. As Peter Lunenfeld (2011, p132, top para) contends ‘technologies are introduced as social or commercial ‘revolutions’ without being slotted into an overarching narrative of general progress’.

Much of what Prensky discusses about the supposed learning styles of Digital Natives has a certain validity, though reality is more complex than his technological determinism will admit. Attention spans decrease and ‘twitch speeds’ increase as humans are exposed to digital media. However, humans will engage with tv, internet and games for unhealthily protracted durations. Facebook, twitter, Youtube, skype, text-messaging et al do modify communication, and not all for the best. As Peter Lunenfeld (2011 p.82, top para) points out ‘as keyboards, screens and even lenses get smaller and smaller, discourse tends to revert to the text-messaging level.’ Referring to the digital and the internet as the information-depositories of a ‘culture machine’, Lunenfeld (2011 p. 60, para 2) also points out that ‘deep reflection is by no means a default setting given the immediacy of the culture machine’s archives’.

Some of Presnsky’s other assertions are pretty offensive. Lecturers no longer assume (page 3, para 3) ‘that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now.’

Prensky does make good arguments about what needs to change in education. On (page 4, para 4) he asserts that ‘“Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them.’ This is very much an argument for the ‘repurposing or remastering’ of ‘old’ or existing learning.

Prensky gets to the reality of modern education on page 4 (para 5) ‘As educators, we need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content in the language of the Digital Natives. The first involves a major translation and change of methodology; the second involves all that PLUS new content and thinking. It‟s not actually clear to me which is harder – “learning new stuff” or “learning new ways to do old stuff.” I suspect it‟s the latter.’

This is our current and future reality. Using technological tools or media changes the way we do things, but core human needs, activities and behaviours persist. Education must change how it does its business, whilst preserving, repurposing and remastering the best of what it has always done. A user determinist approach is still appropriate – we are still in charge and pedagogy should always drive technology. Users (both lecturers and students) still make choices about how (or how not) to use technology. In the face of the digital tsunami, I do believe in the human necessity for what Peter Lunenfeld (2011) calls ‘Info-Triage’.

However, blindly resisting the utility of at least some educational technology is very definitely making a problematic statement. Change happens. We must make use of some (not necessarily all) change.

In conclusion, many of Prensky’s assertions have, since 2001, been overtaken by changing reality. Some people continue to resist change, but they do not represent all in society or all in education. If demarcations did exist between Prensky’s ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital Immigrants’, I believe they’ve been feathered away to inconsequence.
Prensky’s assertions are interesting. I will now read some of his most recent writings.

Lunefeld, P.,(2011) Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading : Tales of the Computer as Culture Machine. MIT Press: Massachusetts

edcmooc - The Disruptive Education Learning Experience

The learner experience within the MOOC is rather like waking up in a learning storm. It’s a threatening, cacophonous, attention-grabbing, clattering synchronous space, very different to our notions of a ‘conventional’ learning space, even a ‘conventional e-learning space’. This is more like ‘academic facebook/discussion boards/twitter’ – all at the same time. The resources are good, the readings are challenging and the discussions and peer-activity is really helpful.

But it’s still a learning storm! The learning experience in disruptive education?

edcmooc - Technological Determinism in Education

There’s currently a lot of “strong” technological determinism in education – telling us that facebook and ‘academic twitter’, google docs, tumblr, flikr, mahara or ‘the latest thing’ are the way we 'must' Teach and Learn, telling us that technology is “The Way”, rather than “a way”. Many academics are bemoaning poor technological uptake amongst their peers, resistance to change, or give out about ‘people not using the software to its full potential’. In reality, most humans are already conducting what MIT's Peter Lunenfeld calls 'Info Triage' - in an attempt to manage precious time, live human lives and protect their fragile brains against infodump overload.

In education, I believe a weaker determinism can now be considered appropriate. Technology can help but ‘if it’s not working, stop using it’. The focus should be on pedagogy, not technology - on the student experience, on student learning, rather than on inflexible systems of information transfer.

edc MOOC begins!

The Coursera E-Learning and Digital Cultures MOOC has commenced!

These early days are a tsunami of resources, suggested readings and cacophonous fellow learners. I don’t know how many people are doing this MOOC (someone mentioned 40k), but the facebook page and twitter feeds seem frantic – a frenetic learning space.

I’ll start with some reactions to two of Week 1’s video resources…

In Bendito Machine 3, the original oscilloscope object, with its single wavy line, seems a very benign god object. The tv god object exhibits increasingly surprising, cruel and randomly violent behaviour to the supine 'worshipper' audience. The net god object is not explored (another film perhaps), being destroyed by the ‘deus ex machina’ alien stilt machine, which is in turn destroyed by the descent/fall of  some horrible measly call-centre corporate selling machine. Despite all the abuse from their gods, these 'natives' are very much 'living with' their techno gods. They are random and unimportant victims of those gods. But the victims are in thrall.

Viewed in another way, the god objects continually assume a crucial central position in the society of the natives. The early god objects are placed on the altar by the adoring natives. The more advanced god objects  climb onto the altar, onto the podium, assuming their power place – so they’re very conscious that the centrality of their god position is the source of their power as gods. Humans remain important to the ‘alien imposed’ technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiXOigfDb0U&feature=player_embedded

I haven’t watched any of the other Bendito Machine videos, but I will, when time permits.

NEWMEDIA

Apart from the rather obvious ‘sinister tentacled aliens from the sky’ similarities, I don't see an visual echoes with Bendito Machine in this film. NEWMEDIA  is very much a sinister, subtle apocalyptic depiction, an alien invasion, a destruction. Humans are not depicted in this video, apart from one human face seemingly attached to alien tentacles. The aliens or alien craft hover over the post-apocalyptic disintegrating, moss-covered city, sinisterly vacuuming up 'stuff'. Black smoke billows into the air, to exacerbate the disturbed scene. This is a war scene, a catastrophe. The humans have lost.

http://vimeo.com/33193443

all comments and suggestions welcome...

 

 

Review of The Edupunks' Guide to A DIY Credential

(review for Technology Enhanced Learning module)

The Edupunks’ Guide To a DIY Credential by Anya Kamanetz is the online resource I’ve chosen to evaluate for this blogpost. The guide is available to read online for free at…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60954896/EdupunksGuide

Alternatively, it can be downloaded as a pdf, if a $9 Day Pass is paid to scribd, or if you sign up for a monthly ($9 per month) scribd membership - the business model for this resource can therefore be described as ‘freemium’.

The Guide is just over 100 pages long and has been read on scribd 58,000 times.

What’s an Edupunk? Anya Kamanetz explains…

An edupunk is someone who doesn’t want to play by the old college rules. Maybe you have interests that don’t fit the academic mold. Maybe you’re in a remote location. Maybe you have a family, a job, or other responsibilities and you can’t take on life as a full-time student. Maybe you love new technology and new ways of learning. Or maybe you’re just a rebel! (page 2 para 2)

The thrust of the Edupunks’ Guide is excellent - encouraging people to take ownership of their own learning and (for educators) framing the need to be open and flexible to student needs (and to the needs of the ambient (societal, educational, media and industrial) environments.

However, as educators we know that undirected or self-directed learning can be as problematic and as protracted as the ‘self-taught’ path which has always existed.

I pointed out some of the dangers of a naïve approach to self-directed education in a blog response to an interesting March 2012 BBC video article on ‘the internet sparking an educational revolution’ (‘blackboards and textbooks are so old school’). In the BBC video, Christina Cacioppo - a ‘School of Visual Arts, Design co-teacher argued…

‘…students don’t have to do things that they don’t want to do, and not just paper things that they don’t need, things a traditional university would have them do…’ - Christina Cacioppo - School of Visual Arts, Design co-teacher.

Whilst Adam Pritzker - General Assembly Co-Founder swiped vaguely at the pointlessness and cost of traditional educational models…

‘diy education offers a wider array of potential experiences. You’re not committing to paying a huge amount of money and to give a huge amount of time to a program which, if you look at the statistics, may not have a definite outcome.’

In my March 2012 blog response, I said that…

…these people strike me as experienced media communicators and new-business people behaving as amateur educators…

In her Edupunks’ Guide, Kamanetz sagely anticipates our concerns as educators…

In the case of DIY education, it means getting the knowledge you need at the time you need it, with enough guidance so you don’t get lost, but without unnecessary restrictions. DIY doesn’t mean that you do it all alone. It means that the resources are in your hands and you’re driving the process. (page 3 para 5)

Kamanetz is also extremely pragmatic about the skills and commitment required for the DIY or edupunk student…

Being an edupunk is not for the faint of heart. Without exception, the students I talked to said that being self-motivated and having good time management skills are absolutely essential for success along a DIY educational path. I would add that you need to be the type of person who’s willing to try something new, even if it’s a little unproven and untested.

Much of Kamanetz’s guide consists of clear and concise advice on creating a personal learning environment – through the Edupunks’ DIY Education Manual. Kamanetz gives excellent advice on how to create a Personal Learning Plan, on ‘How to Teach Yourself Online’ (basic strategies for online research, inquiry and reflection), on how to build a Personal Learning Network, on how (and why) to Find a Mentor, on how and why to demonstrate (your) value to a network. Much of this section of Kamanetz’s guide resembles conventional publications like Judith Bell’s (2010) OU book ‘Doing Your Research Project’.

Page 55 (in The Finish Line section) looks at colleges specialising in degree completion - suggesting excellent, efficient and cost-effective routes to accreditation.

Empire State College (link on page 56 (top para)) describes itself as…

…a college unlike any other. We believe that people deserve the opportunity to study based on their personal and professional goals. Rather than have a prescribed associate or bachelor's curriculum, your degree program can be customized to focus on an area of study necessary to achieve your objectives.

However many of the colleges mentioned Western Governor’s University offer courses in relatively ‘hard’ disciplines (Nursing, IT, Business, Science), which can be easier to assess and feedback through tests...

At WGU, you can earn your whole college degree by passing tests. (page 59 (bottom para))

The guide does also look at ‘low-residency’ programmes, where learners can design personalised study programmes, guided and challenged by faculty advisors.

Goddard College’s (link on page 62 (bottom para)) MFAIA Intro page says…

The Master of Fine Arts in Interdisciplinary Arts (MFAIA) is a self-directed learning community that fosters a climate of ethical, lifelong, creative inquiry.

Each one of our students designs and pursues an individualized course of study. Based on your unique personal interests, intentions, and professional goals, faculty advisors - themselves accomplished and evolving artists - work with you one-on-one, providing personalized feedback, guidance, and challenge.

Despite the more flexible or open student pathway, colleges are building pedagogical rigour into the individualised course structures, using faculty advisors to provide ‘feedback, guidance and challenge’.

Though the Open World section of the Edupunks’ Guide (from page 67 onwards) is packed full of free course and site links, the listings are concise and by no means exhaustive – MIT OpenCourseware, Khan Academy and others are represented whilst MOOC’s and Coursera aren’t mentioned at all? Almost all of the courses, colleges and universities are (of course) in the U.S.. Other small irritants include an inference that the OU (not specifically the OU’s OpenLearn component) is free…

On page 82 of the Guide, the profile of the OU OpenLearn students is described by PhD researcher Kasia Kozinska…

“Everybody I have spoken to is a really, really keen learner,” she says. “They are very strongly motivated, because there is no assessment. And they’re not necessarily interested in formal feedback - they don’t want to do tests, they just want to talk with others in discussion forums.”

While some learners are more independent, captivated by the sheer intellectual pleasure of learning, others are much more social, and interested in belonging to a group, supporting and helping each other learn. A lot of students, of course, are using OpenLearn to get more information before deciding to study formally at the Open University, which is a great way to use open educational resources.

So, programmes like OpenLearn are still being framed as ‘informal’, an information-gathering gateway to formal study at the OU?

On page 100 of her Guide, Kamanetz concludes with rallying calls for DIY education…

After reading through the resources in this guide, I hope you’ll agree that it’s never been a better time to be a learner.

From following a new interest, to finding and collaborating with peers and mentors, to getting recognition for your work, there are new opportunities blossoming all the time. I hope you’ll also get the message that there is no one recommended path within DIY learning. If there’s any single change that I’d personally like to make in the education world, it’s the realization that you, the learner, are in charge.

You should be able to decide what you need, and you should be given the resources to accomplish it, as long as you’re willing to work hard and be a self-starter.

Once again, for all of its faults and limitations, ‘The Edupunks’ Guide to A DIY Credential’ is an excellent online resource.

 

Bibliography

Bell, J. (1999). Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education and social science. 3^rd Ed. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Other Resources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17264945

https://www.coursera.org/#about

http://www.esc.edu/degrees-programs/undergraduate-aos/

http://www.goddard.edu/mfa-interdisciplinary-arts

http://quindpdp.blogspot.ie/2012/03/bbc-article-on-internet-education.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60954896/EdupunksGuide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course