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 21st
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
20th 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
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
20th 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?
end
