Posted on

Weekly summary: week 7

This was the final week of our community cultures block. I’ve played around with Evernote for the first time but I spent most of my time to think back to MOOCs, what communities mean for learning and how to express my findings in my micro-ethnography.

It is understandable how the introduction of OER and MOOCs was embraced by many with the promise of accessibility and narrowing the global digital divide. Research now often highlights the limitations of MOOCs in particular. Ross et al. (2019) summarise the issue in their article Critical approaches to valuing digital education: learning with and from the Manifesto for Teaching and Learning: ‘The limitations around the re-use of some MOOC content; socio-political issues around who creates and who ‘consumes’ MOOCs; the status of for-profit MOOC platform providers; attempts to create walled gardens to better capture MOOC learner data: these and other issues have generated heated discussions about who benefits from this educational trend and to what extent the promise of openness is fulfilled by these courses (Almeida 2017; Bady 2013; Decuypere 2018).’

Community (by pixabay)

After investigating the community culture of my MOOC more closely, I had mixed feelings about who benefits. Undoubtedly, students can access well-thought out teaching materials and apply their knowledge by thinking about issues in their own cities, for example. With no tutor presence, hundreds of posts without replies and a Twitter handle that hasn’t been used for several years, I nonetheless felt that the course providers are the big winners. Once created and up-and-running, not much effort is needed to collect student fees year after year (if they choose the verified certificate route). I find it therefore easy to agree with Knox (2015) in that ‘[the] drive for technologies that facilitate our ‘community learning’ have simultaneously embroiled education in a Silicon Valley culture, motivated by data acquisition and profit.’

References

Knox, J. 2015. Community Cultures. Excerpt from Critical Education and Digital Cultures. In Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. M. A. Peters (ed.). DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_124-1

Ross, J., Bayne, S., Lamb, J.(2019).Critical approaches to valuing digital education: learning with and from the Manifesto for Teaching Online. Digital Culture & Education, 11(1), 22-35.

Posted on

Micro-ethnography

Here is the link to my (rough and ready) micro-ethnography Fake communities?

https://prezi.com/view/BUmTZAFkgLfiTtIIIfGH/

Please also click on the subtopics.

Images from pixabay

References

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd edition), London: Routledge.

Knox, J. 2015. Community Cultures. Excerpt from Critical Education and Digital Cultures. In Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. M. A. Peters (ed.). DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_124-1.

 

Posted on

Study notes: Knox (Critical Education and Digital Cultures)

Study notes: Knox (Critical Education and Digital Cultures)

Community cultures
  • rich and social phenomena – countering more established views that virtual communities lack intensity and depth compared to face-to-face communication.
  • Online discussion groups can be a place for dialogue, sharing, exchange and kinship practices –> online is warm, friendly and communal.
  • this stance often treats technology as instrument; a passive device that seves the aims of its users, and simply facilitates the enhancement of an exclusively human drive for social interactions.
web 2.0
  • increasing emphasis on user-generated content and interactivity found on the web.
  • more mainstream use of the internet
  • technologies framed in more productive and beneficial terms, as services which enhance and support conventional social life
  • recent trend that focuses on the student instead of the teacher –> learning as a social construction of knowledge
  • educational institutions were adopting more digital and networked technologies.
  • technology provides the means for dialogue and communication.
Education and technology
  • changing perspectives in ‘networked learning’ -> signalling instrumentalism of technology and reorganisation of education around the learning of the individual.
  • naturalisation of ‘social learning’ and a concealment of technology
  • connectivism frames the processes of learning as quite literally those of the network
  • the value of a digital cultures perspective is to reveal broader influences, assumptions and trajectories bound up in a drive for participation and networked e-learning communities.
  • centering of community in education positions web technology as the passive instrument of our predetermined educational aims.
  • overlooks powerful economic and ideological forces that underpin and shape technology industry.
  • motivated by data acquisition and profit.

February 26, 2020 at 11:26AM
Open in Evernote

Posted on

Weekly summary: week 6

This week has been very busy with travelling so I didn’t have that much time to spend on my lifestream in the second half of the week.

The tutorial was really helpful and it was great to share exeriences about our chosen MOOCs. It made me think more about the ethical issues of my micro-ethnography. I’m going to post a message on the forum that I’m planning to use for my study to make others aware. I originally thought that I wouldn’t have to do this because I’m not planning to identify anyone but Jeremy clarified that just because someone isn’t identified we have the right to use the content they have shaped. And just because something is public doesn’t mean that it is ethical to use in research. boyd & Crawford (2012:672) raise some important questions: ‘Should someone be included as a part of a large aggregate of data? What if someone’s ‘public’ blog post is taken out of context and analyzed in a way that the author never imagined? What does it mean for someone to be spotlighted or to be analyzed without knowing it? Who is responsible for making certain that individuals and communities are not hurt by the research process? What does informed consent look like?’ They remind us that ‘In order to act ethically, it is important that researchers reflect on the importance of accountability: both to the field of research and to the research subjects.’

References:

danah boyd & Kate Crawford (2012) CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA,
Information, Communication & Society, 15:5, 662-679, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

Posted on

MOOCs Make Way For SPOCs In The Global Education Of Tomorrow

‘But the year ahead heralds a new decade, and with it SPOCs from players who are rethinking the role that online pedagogy can play to bring the world’s most reputable universities to global markets.’ Arguably, $5000 for a four-day course is not something that is achievable for the majority of students.

For most of us, an education from one of the world’s leading universities is inaccessible and unaffordable.

from Pocket https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattsymonds/2019/12/07/moocs-make-way-for-spocs-in-the-global-education-of-tomorrow/
via IFTTT

Posted on

There is no Open in MOOC

Coursera’s announcement to add Specializations to its roster of educational packages comes with a new price in many cases, as noted in Carl Straumsheim’s 1/29 piece at Inside Higher Ed.

from Pocket https://allmoocs.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/there-is-no-open-in-mooc/
via IFTTT

Posted on

Education Technology and the Promise of ‘Free’ and ‘Open’

Audrey Watters analysing some of the predictions that were made for MOOCs and open education. According to her, ‘most of the predictions and promises have been broken’ as MOOCs now often cost money and are not really ‘open’.

This is part four of my annual review of the year in ed-tech The Rebranding of MOOCs Remember 2012, “The Year of the MOOC?” Remember in 2012 when Udacity co-founder Sebastian Thrun predicted that in fifty years, “there will be only 10 institutions in the world delivering higher education and U

from Pocket http://hackeducation.com/2016/12/07/top-ed-tech-trends-free-open
via IFTTT