Wednesday, January 28, 2015

My Take on the Term MOOC

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC)

Massive The popular press would have us believe that massive refers to the enormous numbers of registrants that have been associated with well-publicized MOOCs, such as Sebastian Thrun’s, 2011 course on Artificial Intelligence with 160,000 registrants. However, the original intent behind the use of the word massive focused on the massive potential or capacity to “enable and engage conversations and activities across multiple platforms” – Stephen Downes, What Makes a MOOC Massive? 
This delights me and I think it suits open and connected learning to a T – but then I am not surprised because Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier, George Siemens and Alex Couros (the originators of the term and first practitioners of MOOCs) are all proponents of open and connected learning. 

Open refers to access, i.e. free and available to anyone. "The word open is in constant negotiation." (Cormeir & Siemens, July/August, 2010 Educause Review). I think the quintessential element of “open” is about opening oneself to be free and available to explore new ideas, concepts, patterns, connections, and self-reflections. Opening involves mindfulness, calm, patience and practice. The critical element of practice is that it happens over the course of time, there is no point in, practicing fast.  My ideal is that the connections made in the OPEN ‘gathering’ and my own opening will function like a coach and work with me in a formative manner to draw out my best thinking and knowing. Experience tells me that this type of opening to Self comes through “listening hard”. 
In keeping with the importance of connecting and crediting I have to mention that the initial shift to looking at the possibility of the first O in MOOC standing for opening rather than open came from Gardner Campbell. I was having a tough time finding Gardner’s post to link with, so I used Twitter to direct message @bali_maha, who is part of my PLN and she responded, within the hour, with the requested link – which illustrates a PLN at work! Listening to Hybrid Pod's, Listening to Students, also served as an inspiration for this post. 

Online should not signify the same old thing just in a different form (wolf in sheep's clothing seems like an apt analogy here!). It needs to be a whole new form of communication. The Internet has enabled us to think in a new “meta language”. Online should not simply be a way of taking text books or lectures and broadcasting them online! I have posted on the new "meta language" of the Internet several times. In, Networks are Expanding Our Ignorance, I summarize Robert K. Logan's basic thesis regarding human meta languages developing as a result of information overload. In, Has the Internet Changed how We Think? Yet?, I refer to how the "ability to connect on a large scale and to genuinely collaborate and create rather than simply co-ordinate is what distinguishes Internet communication from previous communication forms." 

Course  The trouble with using the term course is that most people who have gone to school associate course with a teacher/student dichotomy that views the teacher as the sage on the stage or the person with information that needs to be poured into students. Students are taught to be passive and wait for, rather than seek, information. 
" . . . the concept of a “course” has been significantly challenged. In particular, questions have arisen as to the key value of the course in the educational system. Is the value the content— the academic journal articles, lectures, textbooks, and libraries that compose much of the teaching and learning process? Or is it the engagement and interaction that occurs through discussions? Or is it the self-organized activities of learners in the social spaces of a college or university? " (Cormier & Siemens, 2009)
Suffice it to say this is not the approach taken in an open and connected cMOOC, although it does tend to accurately characterize many xMOOCs. For me the C in MOOC is all about agency - about taking responsibility for charting my own learning course, tailoring it to my needs and sharing my riches with other navigators. 

So for me:
signifies the prism of possibilities and the Massive potential for divergent thinking. 
the 1st O refers to Opening to myself, to learning,to sharing, and to receiving.
the 2nd O is about dealing successfully with Overload. It is about connecting and new forms of communication and learning.
C is about navigating wisely and charting my own Course.

photo credit: 

Sunday, January 25, 2015

My How-to for Open and Connected "Gatherings"

Open and connected courses/seminars/etc. (such as, #MSLOC 430) can at times be chaotic and overwhelming. Every time I participate in open endeavours I come to a point where I feel much more unglued than I feel connected. I still do not have a good term for these flowing, rhizomatically expanding installation-like happenings that reflect group-thinking and group-learning on the evolutionary edge of the language of the Internet. The closest I can come in English is “gathering” – yes open and connected gatherings – across time, space, minds, forms, and forums.
My unglued, disconnected or overwhelmed interior voice, pops up from time to time and sounds something like this . . . .
“I missed what was being referred to there!”
“I don’t know where to look or what to read?”
“What should I be doing now?”
“If only I could read faster, or if only I had more time,  . . . if only, if only, if only!”
Too much is happening, too many platforms, too many threads, too many multi-media mash-ups, tweets, Storifies, blogs, possible readings and watchings and links. The whole “gathering” is too complex, convoluted and dynamic for me or any other singular participant to ever fully absorb.
Sequential navigation techniques (like making a list of what to look at, or making a schedule, or course outline, or step-by-step guide) are not compatible with what happens in open and connected gatherings.
So, why?
Why host anything that is open and connected?
Why participate in open and connected sessions?
My answer (other people’s answers will vary) is that Open Connected Gatherings are constantly evolving, thus forcing me to engage fully in a sense-making journey that extends my capacity for thinking and for sharing the products of my thinking with others. I am simultaneously a spectator and a participant in a fast-paced process that ends up being a thrilling learning extravaganza and connection-fest (thanks to @SeanAJones for assisting me in figuring out how to articulate this). 
My experiences have led me to the conclusion that it is both impossible and inappropriate for me to try to “keep up” or fully absorb what is likely to happen. Unlike conventional “courses” keeping up and being comprehensive is not the point! There are several metaphors that help illustrate the folly of trying to fully absorb all that is available.  Two of which are:
  • A buffet – great to sample many items, wonderful to be invited to, and foolish to try and consume everything on the table.
  • A fire hose/stream – I can drink from it only if I sip a tiny fraction of the flow and return later when I need/want more. 

My current guidelines (which are far from static – they evolve and shift every time I participate in a gathering and they evolve as I participate) for experiencing open and connected learning deeply and not becoming overwhelmed are:
  • dedicate some time each day to sample what is happening (be kind and accepting of myself when, inevitably, I miss my goal of everyday)
  • don’t worry about missing things (if they are important enough they will be mentioned again by my network – this is a collaborative undertaking and other people i.e. my PLN will help me notice when something important occurs or they will inform me of things that would be of particular interest to me)
  • focus on connections and constructive feedback on other peoples blogs etc. (ie comment with care and attention on other people’s material, call other people’s attention to items I think they would be interested in – notice the reciprocity here with the bullet above - @tanyalau and Stephen Downes @oldaily helped me understand this)
  •  offer up my own reflections (they can be short and sweet) via Twitter, or my blog, or . . .
  • give credit to others and link as many items and people as I can
  • tweet lots using the hashtag (check the Twitter hashtag often)

photo credit:

Saturday, January 17, 2015

More Mental Taffy Pulling!

(image credit:

I like calling the back-and-forth commenting, adding, building and questioning that inevitably happens in a cmooc-like setting “mental taffy” and I can’t wait for MSLOC430 and the opportunity to start pulling mental taffy once again with; Jeff Merrell, Bruno Winck, Essa Garland, Helen Blunden, Tanya Lau, Rhonda Jessen, Cedric Borzee, Maha Bali, Jennifer Rainey, Keeley Sorokti, Karen Jeannette, and Mitra Emad. Naturally the thought of wonderful new connections that will inevitably happen throughout MSLOC430 (and beyond!) adds to my sense of anticipation.

Jeff Merrell (who co-hosted the fall 2013 cmooc-like seminar XPLRPLN) has created an open section of MSLOC 430 - a graduate course in the Master's Program in Learning and Organizational Change at Northwestern University with the intention to “explore enterprise social networking innovations and their impact on work and learning” over the course of six weeks (starting January 25, 2015). A major draw for me is Jeff’s balance of open (even the planning document is open!) and organization, but equally important are the other participants whose involvement contributed positively to my past experiences either in XPLRPLN or in other cmooc or cmooc-like settings.

Let the fun begin!

Monday, January 13, 2014

Why PLN?

I thought it time for a post on the fundamentals of why PLN? (Yes, in the evolving language of the Internet I think I will use PLN as a verb.)

I have been fishing around trying to define Personal Learning Networks – both on my own and with others – primarily my #xplrpln colleagues. A bit of fun was had with thinking how to explain PLNs to Mom   – all within the confines of a Tweet. The one thing that seems evident is that the definition boundaries are fuzzy and that the ‘personal’ part leads to PLNs meaning different things to different people. However (drum roll here) I have just come across a very straightforward, dare I say obvious, definition in a MUST READ article for those interested in PLNs. People in Personal Learning Networks: Analysing their Characteristics and Identifying Suitable Tools. The study indicates that Twitter is definitely the dominant platform for PLNs. 

A Personal Learning Network refers to the network of people a self-directed learner connects with for the specific purpose of supporting their learning. Rajagopal et. al (2012). 

We are all self-directed learners to a greater or lesser degree (think about how you learned your mother tongue!) but this statement helps me to help others think about PLNs.

Why put in the effort? What do you gain from having a PLN?  - or to extend the use of PLN as a verb - What do you get from PLNning? You get a group of people who:
·      provide you with different perspectives
·      challenge you and help you grow both personally & professionally
·      you can consult to answer questions or expand your understanding
·      help guide your learning
·      help you develop your skills
·      share information with you
·      point you to learning opportunities
·      give you the benefit of their own knowledge, experience and sense-making
·      are interested in the same topic
·      connect through a variety of media
·      are an audience for your learning products & processes
·      extend your expertise
·      provide a reality check for you
·      you can interact with as you learn and formulate your understandings and creative ideas
This list is somewhat redundant (think overlapping circles in a VENN diagram) and I am sure it is missing components as well. I welcome suggestions for additional bullets in the comment section.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Some Musings on the Issue of Network Filters

A key function of a personal learning network is that of filtering information. Our PLNs push information to us and suppress the sort of information that we have indicated we do not need or want.

Tim Kastelle lists Five Forms of Filtering; 3 filters based on human judgement (na├»ve, expert & network) and 2 mechanical filters (heuristic & algorithmic). Kastelle's work provides a very interesting jumping off point for me. Considering filters has helped to trigger my re-examination of several lingering questions. 

To me filters imply convergence. Maybe, just as one needs filters for convergence, one also needs them for divergent thinking – something analogous to a ray of sunlight being filtered by a prism to refract into the colours of the rainbow. This could be akin to standing back and looking for the big picture, which makes me think about deBono’s six coloured hats – each hat is a type of filter. I tug a little more at the niggling thoughts at the periphery of my mind and I think I see that there are both process filters (such as deBono’s hats) and product filters. Too often we focus on product filters to the exclusion of process filters. For the most part we think about filters being convergent and we associate them with product or content but networks are particularly apt in dealing with context. So what is a divergent/process/context filter? Are Kastelle's five filters inclusive of divergent process filters? I think not. Maybe there is a sixth category of filter that is at work when collaboration is at play. The sixth type of filter which I will dub 'prism filter' has to do with purpose and big picture. Sometimes purpose is a consciously articulated part of our process but more often than not it is tacit. Purpose, whether overt or covert, motivates connection and collaboration. Tim Kastelle says, “we can’t connect without some filtering going on . . .” I think we cannot really connect without some ‘purpose’ or ‘big picture’ reason to connect, without our ‘prism filter’ being in play.

If ‘open’ is a critical part of Internet participation then perhaps there ought to be a form of open filter or prism filter available when we are gathering information, resources, ideas. A lens that encourages us to look out, to think big. 

The next step in my reflexive journey involves questioning my questions – maybe the open divergent big picture part is more appropriately dealt with in the sense-making that follows gathering. However, if we have limited our ingredients too much in seeking information we will have limited the boundaries of our sense-making – which brings me to the importance of diversity in networks (an attempt to counteract the effects of homophily and propinquity). I think a critical filter question is, “How do we ensure that our filters do not inappropriately or prematurely restrict our focus?”