zmWmQs

Recommendations

Info

Signals of Success and Self-directed Learning Penny Bentley, Helen Crump, Paige Cuffe, Iwona Gniadek, Briar Jamieson, Sheila MacNeill and Yishay Mor Abstract: Autobiographical records of learner experiences in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are ubiquitous; however, collaborative autoethnographic approaches are less common. Using group reflection within the same online, open, participatory approach and media as characterises MOOCs, this paper explores the experience of participation, learner views of success and if social interaction, self-efficacy and self-directed strategies supported this. How social interaction was achieved and experienced in the OLDSMOOC is intertwined with these factors for these learners. Completion and success are not synonymous terms for these learners and a definition of success is constructed by each participant. Their view of their participation supports the concept of self-directed learners defining their own achievement and their levels of activity vary. The creation of this collaborative paper is suggested as an example of another aspect of their definitions of success, which value and include establishing ongoing connection and shared learning between MOOC participants. Key words: MOOC, participation, learner success, OLDSMOOC, learner perspectives, e-learning, Twitter, self-directed learners, self-regulated learners, connectivism Background The authors all participated in varying ways in the OLD- SMOOC run in early 2013. This MOOC on Learning Design, aimed at post-graduate level study, had a nine-week structured format with each week led by different specialists in Learning Design. Dubbed a ‘project’ or pMOOC, the design aim was that learners undertook a group-defined and executed project within the MOOC, thus the initial week required learners to introduce themselves, define their project goal and discover others with similar goals with whom to work. OLDSMOOC was connectivist in style, though it had a clear pathway through the learning of this topic, with badges available for completion of activities in each stage. Use of a range of online spaces – provided and self-selected - was an intrinsic part of course design and learners were actively encouraged to contribute to these spaces which included, a course website, Cloudworks, Google discussion forums, a Facebook group, Twitter and Bibsonomy. Distinctively, each week concluded with a live streamed Google Hangout to which both specialists and a few learners were invited. Use of the Twitter backchannel for discussion and contributing questions to these hangouts was encouraged and formed a key characteristic of this MOOC. A single tweet by the leader of the OLDSMOOC design team about the call for papers initiated this collaboration. It included twitter handles and the #oldsmooc hashtag as interaction between various OLDSMOOC learners and some members of the presentation team had persisted. A Google doc was opened and initial information on personal experiences of the MOOC captured within a few days. Augmented by input from the leader of the course design team, this paper synthesizes the various discussions this group has shared around the various aspects of their experience within the context of current MOOC research themes. Research questions Although a formal evaluation of OLDSMOOC has been undertaken by the host institution (Cross, 2013), there are still a number of key issues which merit further exploration including: measuring learning success, motivation, adaptation and community building. The latter has particular significance as connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) may be defined as “based on connectivist principles of knowledge creation encouraging collaborative content creation, creativity, autonomy, and social networked learning” (Mc- Gill, 2013). In seeking success measures valid for this environment, Downes (2013) considers two approaches, one based on the elements of the process which he defines as Autonomy, Diversity, Openness and Interactivity and the other focused on the outcomes defined as new emergent knowledge in the network. That is, he forwards that “MOOC success is not individual success”. The difficulties with this on a practical as well as philosophical level are explored by Hendricks (2013), and we propose that an alternative view in keeping with her analysis might be to consider the individual learners’ measures of success and perception of the success of their learning. By considering this viewpoint only in post-completion surveys conducted immediately after the MOOC closes, Research Track | 18
Signals of Success and Self-directed Learning Penny Bentley, Helen Crump, Paige Cuffe, Iwona Gniadek, Briar Jamieson, Sheila MacNeill and Yishay Mor the opportunity to assess ongoing value of this learning in future situations (Dewey, 1938) is lost. Similarly, insights into expressions of self-determined learning, where personal experience and context is key and the learner is “the major agent in their own learning” (Hase & Kenyon, 2007, p. 112), and the opportunity to reflect on any self-directed learning strategies employed, are also difficult to fully capture. Self-directed learning is described by Knowles (1975) as “a process in which individuals take initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (p. 18). In this paper adaptation of course design and/or resources are also considered as demonstrating learner initiative. This collective reflective process, conducted six months after participation in the MOOC, offers another lens through which to explore concepts of learner success. Issues explored include the extent to which participants adapted OLDS MOOC to suit their context and needs, and whether the inquiry/project -based pedagogy allows participants to create their own learning paths. This study focuses on two research questions: 1) How do learners define success in a MOOC 2) To what extent do connection, self-efficacy and self-directed strategies facilitate learning in a MOOC Research methodology In order to explore this new territory and capture a rich view of individual participants’ perspectives, a collaborative autoethnographic approach has been adopted. Collaborative autoethnographic practice has been described as “individually writing autoethnographic narratives … sharing these autoethnographic narratives in a public forum … publicly discussing the heuristic commonalities across these autoethnographic narratives … tying those commonalities back to the literature, and revisiting the autoethnographic narratives…” (Geist-Martin et al, 2010). Possible limitations inherent in the chosen methods and methodology include that this study is dependent on a small, self-selecting sample of participants who have reflected on their experience on one particular MOOC. Their views are oriented by this; just as their individual reflections may have been oriented by their collective discussion. However, generalizations are not the aim of this study, rather ‘naturalistic generalization’ is achieved by moving “the focus of generalizability from respondents to readers” (Stake, 1994, p.195) allowing the reader to determine if sufficient content within the narratives resonate with their context to permit transfer of the findings. Data collection and analysis Approximately six months after participating in OLD- SMOOC, the research was initiated by a tweet by the leader of the OLDSMOOC design team about the call for papers for this conference. The tweet included the twitter handles of those learners who had made use of Twitter during the MOOC and continued to connect through Twitter by following the course presentation team, as well as the #oldsmooc hashtag. Of the potential participants so defined, eight initially expressed interest in participating, with six ultimately contributing to discussions. Through discussion on Twitter it was agreed to set up a Google doc and initial contributions were captured within days (Oldsmoop, 2013). It was then agreed that we collectively reflect on individual and shared experiences via a series of Google hangouts, which were recorded. These discussions were under-pinned by a number of shared documents in which more detailed evidence and reflection, both individual and collective, was gathered (Oldsmoop 2013). In addition, a Twitter hashtag, #oldsmoop, sufficed for brief sharing in the reflective process. Moreover, the data generated by the authors at the time of the MOOC (e.g. blogs, tweets, forum posts, Google Hangout sessions, personal notes) was re-visited to provide some triangulation. Analysis of data in this study was by way of broad thematic analysis. Personal Reflections Penny’s reflection on Confidence (Penny Bentley works with adults in the Australian Further Education and Training Sector on digital literacy, and is a PhD candidate at The Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern Queensland) “I’ve thought long and hard about the definition of “confidence” and my reasons for feeling this way during a connectivist MOOC. Where did this belief in my own ability to persist with OLDS MOOC come from Upon reflection it seems that familiarity with the online environment and my personality traits are the two most significant factors. Prior to signing up for OLDS MOOC I’d spent almost two years networking online and developing a Personal Learning Environment, my home on the web. I was comfortable finding my way around, communicating via social media, curating resources, blogging and learning in a virtual classroom. This familiarity with the online environment enabled me to jump into OLDS MOOC and enjoy the journey, rather than struggling to build my learning environment first. I also had my online identity/personality well established, not worrying all the time about my privacy being compromised. What I realise now is that I had sufficient digital literacy skills to cope. Research Track | 19
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of the European MOOC St
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Understanding Per
Page 5 and 6: Understanding Persistence in MOOCs
Page 11 and 12: Analysing student participation in
Page 17: Analysing student participation in
Page 21 and 22: Signals of Success and Self-directe
Page 27 and 28: Analyzing completion rates in the F
Page 33 and 34: Challenges for conceptualising EU M
Page 43 and 44: Scaffolding Self-learning in MOOCs
Page 51 and 52: Towards an Outcome-based Discovery
Page 59 and 60: Dropout Prediction in MOOCs using L
Page 67 and 68: Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 69 and 70:
Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 71 and 72:
Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 73 and 74:
Extending the MOOCversity A Multi-l
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Encouraging Forum Participation in
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
MOOC Learning in Spontaneous Study
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Dropout: MOOC Participants’ Persp
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Reflections on Enrollment Numbers a
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
The SIRET Training Platform: Facing
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
MOOCs in fragile contexts Barbara M
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Cultural Translation in Massive Ope
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
A typology and dimensions of a desc
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Characterizing video use in the cat
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
How Students Learn using MOOCs: An
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
A Platform that Integrates Quizzes
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Designing Video for Massive Open On
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Proceedings Experience Track Procee
Page 171 and 172:
Opening up higher education through
Page 173 and 174:
Designing your first MOOC from scra
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
“A hostage to fortune” - Valida
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
and others discussed COER13 issues
Page 187 and 188:
tion process, in addition to the mu
Page 189 and 190:
TORQUEs: Riding the MOOC wave to be
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Engineering MOOCs for Future Engine
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
The Discrete Optimization MOOC An E
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Recasting a Traditional Course into
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Evaluation and field trials of MOOC
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Learning Electronics through a Remo
Page 217 and 218:
Learning Electronics through a Remo
Page 219 and 220:
abiertaUGR: modelling online learni
Page 221 and 222:
abiertaUGR: modelling online learni
Page 223 and 224:
University of London International
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
The EPFL MOOC Factory Patrick Jerma
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Open Online Courses in the context
Page 237 and 238:
Open Online Courses in the context
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Friendly Handmade Explanation Video
Page 243 and 244:
Friendly Handmade Explanation Video
Page 245 and 246:
Designing for the Unknown Learner H
Page 247 and 248:
Designing for the Unknown Learner H
Page 249 and 250:
MOOC Experience in the University o
Page 251 and 252:
MOOC Experience in the University o
Page 253 and 254:
Mathematics Courses: Fostering indi
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
First time MOOC provider: reflectio
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
An Academic Online Resource at Téc
Page 267 and 268:
An Academic Online Resource at Téc
Page 269 and 270:
Opening up higher education through
Page 271 and 272:
SPOCs for Remedial Education: Exper
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Experiments with connectivism from
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Towards a quality model for UNED MO
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Project-based MOOCs. A Field Report
Page 291 and 292:
Project-based MOOCs. A Field Report
Page 293:
Reviewers of Experience Track: Carl
show all

zmWmQs

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?