Group items tagged

Article identified on Stephen Downes' home page, Juy 20, 2012. Excerpt "Although MOOCs share the common characteristics of being large courses open to anyone, there are two main types, one called an "x MOOC," and another called a "connectivist MOOC." The companies and partnerships that fall into the "x MOOC" include Coursera; an MIT and Harvard partnership called EdX, and a new venture founded by three roboticists called Udacity. Other universities follow a connectivist MOOC model developed by George Siemens, Stephen Downes and Dave Cormier in 2008. What's the difference between the two? Connectivist MOOCs are more social and focused on deriving meaning of the learning experience with others, Virginia Commonwealth's Becker said. And they allow students to participate through blogs, RSS feeds and other decentralized methods, said Downes, a senior researcher for Canada's National Research Council. By contrast, x MOOCs emphasize content mastery, centralizes courses on one website and uses automated grading tools to support hundreds of thousands of students. But regardless of the category, MOOCs as a whole will change how universities offer courses, Downes said. And they're not going away. "Universities can't just keep doing what they're doing and hope this whole online thing goes away," Downes said."

The Future of Online Learning, Stephen Downes

Interesting blog post by Chris Collison on starting learning initiatives although he calls them knowledge management, posted July 16, 2013. They are more like variations on a theme than discreet choices. Nevertheless, they are important for enterprise learning facilitators to know about. 1. Top Down, Big Bang-"The challenge, of course is to find ways to keep people's attention - particularly when the board or senior sponsors have moved onto their next big bang." 2. Top Down, Bottom Up--"there is a deliberate effort to harness the energy and passion of workers at the front line, and to involve them in the programme, perhaps as group of advisors or a community of practice." 3. Slipstream--"Slipstreaming is about working in partnership with other initiatives or "transformation projects"" 4. Outside in--"Sometimes things just sound better when they are heard from the outside." 5. Viral--"you need to be prepared for it to be messy - it's a case of let a thousand flowers bloom, pick the best ones and do the weeding and gardening later. However, it's hard to imagine "lessons learned", "knowledge retention" or the creation of knowledge products spreading like wildfire." 6. Stealth--"build up your organization's capability to manage and share knowledge without them realising what your master plan actually is." 7. Copycat--" it's often successful to point to examples of successful KM from other organisations (competitors and customers are particular impactful) to create some "me too" or "me better" demand." 8. Pilot--"A pilot enables you to try the aspects of KM most likely to make a difference quickly, to build credibility locally, and to learn from each implementation." 9. Buffet Menu--"this approach works with the demand already present, and provides an array of tools and techniques which the organisation chooses from at will, once their "palate" is sufficiently educated." 10. Phoenix from the Ashes--"For a lot of organisation

Interesting link from Steven Downes' Daily about where education and venture capital funding are colliding. According to Clarence Fisher, a classroom teacher blogger, most venture capital funding is not going to increase technology learning and future learning, but is going to reinforce the "basics". He exempts Coursera, but Downes questions them somewhat, too.

Interesting article on where venture capital is going in education-not to online, DIY, make your meaning kinds of learning but to reinforce basic skills learning.

Stephen Downes' blog Excerpt: "The process perspective asks whether the MOOC satisfied the criteria for successful networks. Of these, the most important are contained in what I call the Semantic Condition, which ensures that the MOOC remains a living system. The semantic condition contains four parts: autonomy, diversity, openness, and interactivity. The MOOC is assessed against each of these and a degree of compliance may be found."

History of MOOCS a la Stephen Downes and contrary to historians who start with OpenCourseWare at MIT and then jump to Stanford's MOOCs around 2009

hmmmm, identified by stephen Downes

A rubber ducky personal learning network--could this be a model for a personal reflection--knowledge building exercise for IL teachers?

Blog post by Stephen Downes exploring what a MOOC does and does not do--it does not replicate or build on past failed educational pathways where a person--adult or child--is not motivated enough to invest time in his/her own learning path. He mentions that online gaming is the best pre-MOOC and equivalent to MOOC for young people. Makes me wonder about my addiction to WordsFree and Scrabble on my iphone and desire to beat the computer again and again. Or enrolling in a MOOC where the opportunity to connect with smart, similarly-quested learners/achievers/doers must motivate me to overcome challenges of schedule, technology, serendipitous approach to learning, self-expression, etc. The MOOC is simply a much bigger playground where my motivation and my two feet (or eyes!) rule my behavior .

Stephen Downes is the guest speaker in the YouTube video and talks about the future of education. It is about an hour and half, but is interesting in getting his future view. Of interest to us is how he view of what he does: philosopher, journalist, technologist, educator. He calls himself a philosophical educator and looks at learning from epistomology, not educational learning theory.

Very interesting interview with Stephen Downes and his view of learning and his role.

Stephen Downes on what learners need and want in a networked world. Although he does go on in his usual way, this is a really interesting take on current educational models vs. what students want and need, and are beginning to access themselves.

Stephen Downes on what learners need and want in a networked world. Although he does go on in his usual way, this is a really interesting take on current educational models vs. what students want and need, and are beginning to access themselves.

Presentation by Stephen Downes to the London School of Economics, pretty ironic for Stephen to give a lecture on how learning is different now, August 2014. Amazing and funny! "People are looking for learning that isn't so much the repetition of their professors' ideas, but learning that they can apply, that is a part of their life, whether it's part of their life in work, part of their life in their hobbies or their avocations, or part of their life just in what interests them. They expect universities to be flexible." different learning going on The fact is that people learn differently, that they have different objectives, different priorities, different goals, different times that they want to learn, different pets sleeping on their keyboard, all of these impact how people want to learn. That's immediately obvious to anyone who actually looks at people learning. Even as I look around this room, he's on an iPad, she's typing, she's writing on a notepad, he's asleep. Everyone learns differently. Connectivism MOOC George and I launched our MOOC on connectivism, which some of you may have heard of. Most of you may not have heard of it. If you talk about a niche subject, this is as niche as it can get. It's an unknown theory in the field of educational technology.

Excellent comparison of xMOOC and cMOOC and justification of cMOOC by who else, the cMOOC creator himself, Stephen Downes, February 11, 2015. Highly recommend it.

#change11, blog post by Bon Stewart, May 2, 2012 And here's the rub... "The original MOOCs - the connectivist MOOCs a la Siemens & Downes, and the work of David Wiley and Alec Couros and others - have been, for the most part, about harnessing the capacity of participatory media to connect people and ideas. They've been built around lateral, distributed structures, encouraging blog posts and extensive peer-to-peer discussion formats. Even in live sessions showcasing facilitator's expertise, these ur-MOOCs have tended towards lively backchannel chats, exploring participants' knowledge and experiences and ideas. They've been, in short, actively modelled on the Internet itself. They've been experiential and user-driven. Their openness hasn't stopped at registration capacity, but extended to curricular tangents and participatory contributions and above all, to connections: they've given learners not just access to information but to networks. They've been messy, sometimes, but they have definitely not been business as usual. The problem with EdX is that, scale and cost aside, it IS essentially a traditional learning model revamped for a new business era. It puts decision-making power, agency, and the right to determine what counts as knowledge pretty much straight back into the hands of gatekeeping institutions."

Very interesting blog post by David Griffiths, July 4, 2012. It's interesting because he took the release of an analysis of American Intelligence in Afghanistan and used it to surface issues in online CoPs. Excerpts: "What I find interesting is that I have had very few conversations where organisations have described their need for CoP to be driven by a need to become more dynamic, agile or adaptive - a major concern for organisations today ..." "Many CoP are far too large, much like a sprawling metropolis, it is difficult to find the boundary for the community; this results in low levels of trust and sub communities that create their own 'neighborhoods' with interesting sub cultures. Others are devoid of purpose, well intentioned in their conception, but reduced to a shell, tumbleweed blowing down dried up knowledge flows; a creaking sign blows back and forth over the community portal:" "This CoP was presented as a panacea for problem solving, but it was built upon community leaders who were chosen by the organisation for their high level of expertise, which in this case also meant they had been with the organisation for a long period of time. I was left to wonder whether this was a community at all, or whether it was just a problem solving network. I asked how they surfaced new ideas, how they encouraged variety, how they used signals from the front line to make wider strategic or operational decisions? Did they use the community to monitor the type/nature of problems that were emerging and how community leaders were responding? Were the problems signalling disturbances in the environment that required a strategic response?" "The lesson to be learned for those operating CoP in organisations is to by all means use community 'leaders', but use them not as community police, or regulators, but as catalysts to surface relevant intelligence for the organisation. I would argue that you will start looking for different types of people, with differe

Stephen Downdes' home website--has interesting ebooks/pdfs on Free learning, Access::Future, and so on

The Connectivist Phenomenon, pre-course activities for the EDC MOOC on Slide Rocket. Great presentation and spirit depicted here.