zmWmQs

Extending the MOOCversity
A Multi-layered and Diversified Lens for MOOC Research
Tanja Jadin and Martina Gaisch
sera does not create any courses; they are mere providers
for online courses for their partner institutions (Armstrong,
2012). As to the stakeholders of MIT, they seek to
advance their own strategic vision and “to learn how to
use new technologies to most effectively educate their
own on-campus students” (Armstrong, 2012, para.10).
There is no doubt that MOOCs are constantly growing,
and as Pappano writes “Coursera, Udacity and edX are
defining the form as they develop their brands” (Pappano,
2012). Although MOOCs are open and free, Coursera
has $43 million in new investment money (Rivard, 2013)
which clearly shows the added value of such an educational
form in terms of financial means.
The European landscape of MOOCs and the major
stakeholders in this field were discussed and identified at
the European MOOC Stakeholders’ Meeting in Lausanne
in June 2013. In his presentation, Dillenbourg (2013)
listed 13 European countries that are eagerly involved
in establishing and providing MOOCs, seeking to thus
unravel and consequently further develop the European
MOOCversity. When taking a closer look at the different
providers of MOOCs in Europe, one gets the impression
that the concept of American MOOCs (cMOOCs and
xMOOCs) is simply copied. As an example we would like
to take the German provider iversity (https://iversity.
org/). iversity- in its own words- introduces its courses
by referring to the slogan “Ivy-League for everyone”
(https://iversity.org/en/pages/ivy-league-for-everyone).
This bold statement shows the eagerness to take the Ivy-
League concept as a role model when it comes to offering
MOOCs.
Learning Cultures
Behaviorism and xMOOCs
By taking a closer look at the pedagogical models of existing
MOOC platforms, it becomes apparent that xMOOCs
seem more strongly rooted in the tradition of behaviorism
which originated in America, while cMOOCs are more
likely to be associated with constructivism. The founders
of behaviorist ideas such as Watson, Skinner and Thorndike
are all important American representatives of classical
and operant conditioning. Skinner’s work, well-known for
different experiments with animals, gave evidence of how
behaviour can be changed through reinforcement. He is
also considered to be the father of programmed instruction.
The idea behind his teaching machine was to create
learning content in small steps and give immediate feedback
to the learner (Vargas, 2005). Nowadays this form
of computer based-learning is known as drill and practice,
which is reflected by simple presentation of learning
material where learners respond to quizzes and receive
feedback on whether the answer was right and wrong.
When taking a closer look at the xMOOCs tradition, most
of the features remind us of learning in a behavioristic
way falling back on video lectures (the learning material)
and self-quizzes (see also Bates, 2012; Clarà & Barberà,
2013).
Connectivism and cMOOCs
The idea behind cMOOCs in general is to cope with the
new possibilities offered by the Internet. Being aware of
the complexity of this new digital era, Siemens (2004) proposed
a new learning theory that he named connectivism.
Siemens argued that it was important to know where information
can be found and how it might be successfully
used. Information will be changed through use, reuse, and
connection of nodes of information sources. What is most
essential here is the way of connecting information and
persons, yet having an eye on the impact of networks. The
issue at stake, however, is that connectivism can, in our
view, hardly be labelled a learning theory. Clarà and Barberà
(2013) identified three critical issues in this context.
First, connectivism does not address the ‘learning paradox’
which is, “how do you recognise a pattern if you do not
already know that a specific configuration of connections
is a pattern” (Clarà & Barberà, 2013, p.131). Second, in
connectivism interaction and connection are reduced to
a static binary form. This is contrary to the understanding
of learning as a process and the quality of interaction
rather than the simple view of interaction on/off. The third
challenge recognized by Clarà and Barberà (2013) is that
connectivism does not explain concept development. Every
learning theory explains different forms and aspects
of human learning and extents the view of knowledge acquisition
(Behaviorism), knowledge integration, memory,
cognition (Cognitivism) to knowledge creation and collaborative
learning (Constructivism).
The fact that knowledge is constantly growing and we
are permanently confronted with a huge variety of new
information that can be connected or externally stored
cannot per se be explained as an additional aspect of human
learning nor raise a claim of being a new learning theory
altogether. Such a new learning concept will have to
explain if and how learning changes when new technology
and additional possibilities come into play, be it in form of
hardware i.e. tablets, smartphones, new user interfaces
and interaction (touch instead of clicking), or software
developments and the technology behind Web 2.0 (e.g.
Ajax).
Constructivism and Web 2.0
The increasing possibilities due to the omnipresent and
easy use of Web 2.0 tools such as Wikis and Weblogs
question whether, and if so how, they could be used for
learning.
More recent pedagogical approaches emphasize learning
in both groups and authentic and real situations. Constructivist
learning suggests inquiry and problem-based
learning (e.g. Savery & Duffy, 2001), situated cognition
(Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) and a number of peda-
Research Track | 74