ArticlePDF Available

Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology

Distance Education

May 2013
34(1)

DOI:10.1080/01587919.2013.770428

Authors:

Marc Clarà

University of Lleida

In this reflection, we discuss the connectivist conception of learning in Web 2.0 environments, which underpins the pedagogy of what are known as cMOOCs (connectivist massive open online courses). We argue that this conception of learning is inadequate and problematic, and we propose that cultural psychology is best suited to address the explanatory challenges that Web 2.0 poses on learning, and therefore, it is also best suited to provide massive open online courses with more adequate and less problematic pedagogy. We suggest two initial and general pedagogical principles based on cultural psychology upon which to begin building this new pedagogy for massive open online courses.

Content uploaded by Marc Clarà

Content may be subject to copyright.

Learning online: MOOCs, connectivism, and cultural psychology

Marc Clarà and Elena Barberà

Clarà, M. & Barberà, E. (2013): Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs),

connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129-136.

In this reflection, we discuss the connectivist conception of learning in Web 2.0

environments, which underpins the pedagogy of what are known as cMOOCs

(connectivist massive open online courses) (Siemens, 2012). We argue that this

conception of learning is inadequate and problematic, and we propose that

cultural psychology is best suited to address the explanatory challenges that Web

2.0 poses on learning, and therefore, it is also best suited to provide MOOCs with

more adequate and less problematic pedagogy. We suggest two initial and

general pedagogical principles based on cultural psychology upon which to begin

building this new pedagogy for MOOCs.

Keywords: Web 2.0; e-learning; distance education

Introduction

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are receiving increasing attention and interest

from several communities involved in online distance education. Although MOOCs

were initiated and guided by very specific pedagogical assumptions, the phenomenon

has spread out without necessarily following their initial associated pedagogy. This fact

led Siemens (2012) to differentiate between cMOOCs and xMOOCs. This second type

of MOOC is mainly developed by world-leading campus-based universities (such as the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Stanford University) as an evolution of an

institutional strategy regarding digital technology and on-campus teaching (Armstrong,

2012). Thus, xMOOCs are not pedagogically driven, and the consequence is that they

assume pedagogies mainly based on behaviorist psychology (Bates, 2012). cMOOCs,

on the other hand, were developed with the explicit aim of exploring a pedagogy that

takes advantage of Web 2.0 for learning. Pioneers of cMOOCs (mainly Siemens and

Downes) argued that none of behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism could

adequately explain learning as it happens in Web 2.0. Consequently, they articulated

some psychological assumptions that they argued to be a new learning theory, called

connectivism. These psychological assumptions led them to propose the pedagogy that

in 2008 gave birth to the first MOOC (Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010).

Disregarding the reasons why some superficial characteristics of cMOOCs were

assumed by world-leading campus-based universities when they created their xMOOCs,

and although the pedagogy of xMOOCs is not currently based on connectivism (but on

behaviorism), connectivism is likely to play an important role in the future evolution of

MOOCs, because when xMOOCs are forced to modernize their pedagogy—and this

will occur soon (Daniel, 2012)—the first model to look at will be cMOOCs. For this

reason it is important, at the current stage of this story, to carefully and critically

consider the psychological assumptions that connectivism proposes as a way of

understanding and explaining learning in Web 2.0.

In this reflection, we argue that connectivism is not able to adequately explain

how learning occurs (neither in Web 2.0 nor in any other environment) because it does

not address many of the central attributes of learning. We then suggest that a promising

psychological tradition able to explain learning in Web 2.0, and therefore, able to drive

the future pedagogies of MOOCs, is the Vygotskian tradition of cultural psychology.

Theoretical assumptions of learning in the Web 2.0 environment

When Siemens (2005, 2006) and Downes (2005, 2006, 2012) first proposed the core

psychological principles of connectivism, they proceeded from the idea that the existing

learning theories were unable to explain some challenging characteristics posed by Web

2.0. These characteristics are mainly the following: (a) the rapid growth of knowledge,

which makes knowledge itself a dynamic phenomenon; (b) the new kinds of production

and externalization of knowledge, which multiply the perspectives embedded in

knowledge.

Siemens (2005, 2006) and Downes (2005, 2006, 2012) summarized the existing

learning theories in three theoretical positions: behaviorism, cognitivism and

constructivism. They assumed that these three positions share two key attributes: (a)

knowledge resides in the individual; and (b) knowledge is a thing—a representation—

that people create or appropriate. Siemens and Downes argued that these two attributes

are not compatible with the characteristics of knowledge in Web 2.0. In their view, the

dynamism of knowledge in Web 2.0 contradicts the thingness of knowledge assumed by

the existing learning theories, and the multiplicity of perspectives embedded in

knowledge in Web 2.0 contradicts the individual location of knowledge assumed by the

existing learning theories.

As a consequence of this rationale, Siemens (2005, 2006) and Downes (2005,

2006, 2012) proposed a new learning theory, called connectivism, which can be

basically summarized by two fundamental ideas that respond to what they identify as

explanatory challenges of learning in Web 2.0.

First, in reaction to the thingness of knowledge assumed by the existing learning

theories, and as explanation of the dynamic nature of knowledge, connectivism states

that knowledge is subsymbolic, and that representations are just epiphenomena of

knowledge, but not its matter. The following quote by Downes (2006) is illustrative of

this idea:

It [knowledge] is, rather (and carefully stated), a recognition of a pattern in a set of

neural events (if we are introspecting) or behavioural events (if we are observing).

We infer to mental contents the same way we watch Donald Duck on TV – we

think we see something, but that something is not actually there – it’s just an

organization of pixels.

Therefore, to know means to form a pattern of neuronal associations, which at the

experiential level gives the impression of a representation. The patterns of association

can be highly changeable, and therefore representations, which are their epiphenomena,

are dynamic.

Second, these neuronal associative patterns are caused by the learner’s

recognition of associative patterns between informational entities (named nodes) located

outside the learner and organized in a network. In the Web 2.0 environment, the nodes

would be people, materials, and tools that the learner connects to. This idea of external

network as the starting point of the learning and knowing process is proposed as a

reaction to the idea of knowledge as residing in the individual, and as explanation of the

multiplicity of perspectives embedded in knowledge.

Although connectivism apparently addresses the challenges posed by Web 2.0

for learning, we argue that it does not provide adequate explanation to learning

phenomena because it neglects other crucial aspects of learning. We develop this

critique much more extensively elsewhere, so in this reflection, we will only point at

three important explanatory problems of the connectivist theoretical assumptions.

The first problem is that connectivism does not address at all what is known as

the “learning paradox.” This paradox, first posed by Socrates (Plato, 380 B.C./2002),

can be applied to connectivism as follows: How do you recognize a pattern if you do

not already know that a specific configuration of connections is a pattern? When a

pattern is connected for the first time, why are the nodes connected in that specific way,

and why is that configuration seen as a pattern? Connectivism leaves this question

unaddressed, and therefore unresolved. This theoretical problem causes an important

learning problem in cMOOCs: Many learners, especially those who do not have high

self-regulation skills, feel lost and without any direction and support in cMOOCs (Kop,

2011; Mackness et al., 2010).

The second problem is that connectivism underconceptualizes interaction and

dialogue, by understanding it as a learner’s connection to a human node in the network.

In the connectivist understanding, this connection to a human node is binary (on-off)

and static. Besides, the human node is seen as part of the (external) connective pattern

constitutive of knowledge (Downes, 2012). These ideas are in clear contradiction with

the evidence on interaction that the scientific community has been observing for

decades, also in online learning environments. It is well known that the other can be

crucial in a learning process without being part of what is learnt, but by being the

assistant of this learning. It is also well known that interaction is a process (not a state)

which evolves, and that the evolution and dynamics of interaction are related with the

learning process—think, for example, of the well-documented interactional process of

transfer of responsibility (e.g., Coll, Onrubia, & Mauri, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991;

Van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010). Just because of its dynamic nature,

interaction can be hardly characterized as a binomy like interaction-no interaction (on-

off). This serious underconceptualization causes another important learning problem in

cMOOCs: Many learners experience problems in finding proper ways to establish and

maintain a fruitful learning dialogue with others (Kop, 2011; Mackness et al., 2010).

The third problem is that connectivism is unable to explain concept

development. There is no need to mention that there is an extremely large amount of

evidence documenting the fact that a concept develops over time—in other words, one

specific concept is not of the same nature when used by a 4-year-old child as when this

child is 12 years old. The important explanatory problem experienced currently by

connectivism is the same problem that all associationisms in the history of psychology

have also faced before, and it is one of the key reasons that led to abandonment of

associationism in the 20th century (Vygotsky, 1986). The problem, in connectivist

terms, can be posed as follows: If a concept consists of a specific pattern of

associations, how can it be explained that the concept develops but the pattern of

associations remains the same? From our point of view, this problem inevitably leads to

abandonment of the connectivist idea of knowledge as associative patterns, which

actually means abandoning the whole theoretical assumption of connectivism.

The consequence of all of this is that, although at first glance the connectivist

proposals may seem appealing, connectivism does not provide an adequate explanation

of learning phenomena in Web 2.0, and therefore it is not able to provide an adequate

pedagogy for MOOCs. In the next section, we propose that cultural psychology is a

promising starting point to provide a conceptual explanation of learning in Web 2.0,

which is able to underlie and support an adequate pedagogy for MOOCs.

The Vygotskian tradition of cultural psychology

The genealogy of the Vygotskian psychological tradition is quite complex to trace. In

this reflection, we consider that this tradition is articulated around the axis formed by

the works of Vygotsky-Leontiev-Ga’lperin-Davydov-Cole-Engeström. This tradition is

commonly known as cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) or cultural psychology

(Blunden, 2010; Cole, 1996; Engeström, 2001). Summarizing the theoretical universe

developed by this tradition is, of course, beyond the scope of this reflection. Instead, we

will briefly focus on three ideas that together can adequately address the two challenges

of learning in Web 2.0 identified by connectivists.

The first idea is that representations (knowledge) are tools (psychological tools

)

that mediate between the subject and the object. Representations are not originally

located within the subject; their origin is external. Moreover, representations (as tools)

only exist in use, as mediating between subject and object. Therefore, a representation is

not something that the subject has but something that the subject uses in relation to an

object.

The second idea is that representations are distributed (present and available) in

communities and systems of activity. A community (Wenger, 1998) can be understood

as a group of people who have a mutual engagement (or in other words, a common

object) and a shared repertoire (or in other words, a shared set of tools to relate to the

object). A system of activity can be understood as a tradition within which a community

can be located in the long-term history (Engeström, 2001). The tools distributed in a

community and in a system of activity are transformed and redistributed by different

mechanisms (Engeström, 1987). The most powerful mechanism is the interaction of two

or more systems of activity as a consequence of a partially shared object.

The third idea is that learning consists of the learner’s internalization of the use

of a representation in relation to an object. This internalization is possible only if the

learner has the opportunity of using the representation jointly with others within a zone

of proximal development. As a consequence of their participation in this joint activity

there is internalization by the learners, who can finally use the representation on their

own (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Internalization always implies certain transformations in

the use of the representation: When using the representation autonomously, the learner

always uses it in slightly different ways than the people who were involved in the joint

activity that made internalization possible. These transformations in use can be at the

same time externalized by the learner and therefore distributed in the community and

the system of activity; in this way these new uses can be internalized by other users who

will also transform and externalize them (Engeström, 1999).

In our view, these ideas adequately meet the two explanatory challenges that,

according to Siemens (2005, 2006) and Downes (2005, 2006, 2012), Web 2.0 poses for

learning, namely the dynamism of knowledge and the multiplication of perspectives

embedded in knowledge. From the viewpoint of cultural psychology, representations

are things; however, they are not fixed objects but mediational means. Thus, the object

can remain the same, but the representations used to relate to this object may be highly

changeable. This dynamism and changeability of representations is a consequence of

the two main mechanisms of transformation and re-distribution that we mentioned

earlier: the interaction between systems of activity and the process of internalization-

externalization. Both mechanisms necessarily require a dialectic interaction among a

multiplicity of perspectives (Engeström, 1999, 2001).

Web 2.0 amplifies and accelerates these two mechanisms (Engeström &

Sannino, 2010). The consequence is that the dynamism and the multiplicity of

perspectives inherent in any representation are currently much more evident and larger

than in earlier decades. However, from the viewpoint of cultural psychology, this

phenomenon is not new, and it is fully explainable: it just responds to a (technologically

accelerated) transformation and re-distribution of representations in order to relate to an

object.

From this conceptualization, we suggest two initial and general pedagogical

principles regarding MOOCs. The first principle is to enable, both didactically and

technologically, the visualization of the objects that learners choose to relate to, in order

to make possible and evident the use of representations as mediating tools between the

learner and the object. Too often, pedagogies have confused the representations with the

object, so that it has been assumed that the object of the learner’s activity is the

representation itself; in the Web 2.0 era, with the acceleration of transformation and re-

distribution of representations, this erroneous assimilation of representation-object may

lead both learners and teachers to a crisis about what is worthy to know and learn.

Pedagogy in Web 2.0 environments needs to make more evident than ever this

differentiation between representation-object, and needs to provide learners with

visualized objects that give direction to their learning, since objects remain relatively

stable even when the representations and (other) tools used to relate with them change

and transform rapidly.

The second principle is to enable, both didactically and technologically,

opportunities for joint activity; that is, opportunities for people to use together a

representation in order to relate to a common object. Only if these opportunities are

provided will the uses of representations be internalized (i.e., learned) by participants.

This requires the possibility of dialogicity in interaction (Wells & Mejía Arauz, 2006)

and dialogue sustained over time, in order to make possible processes of transfer or

responsibility.

Conclusion

Since its formulation in 2005, connectivism has received strong critiques from several

authors from different points of view. Kop and Hill (2008), for example, have argued

that connectivism cannot be considered a learning theory (yet) because its postulates do

not meet the criteria to be so considered. Lange (2012) has been more severe, and has

argued that connectivism is not a learning theory, not only because it does not meet the

criteria, but because it does not offer anything new, just a mixture of ideas already

present in other well-established learning theories. In the same vein, Verhagen (2006)

has suggested that connectivism is a pedagogical view, but not a learning theory;

however, even as a pedagogical view, both Verhagen and Lange have argued that

connectivism does not offer any relevant contribution. Bell (2011) has argued that

connectivism must be seen as just a phenomenon, and not as a learning theory or as a

pedagogical view. From this view, Bell has suggested that connectivism can be

understood and practiced from different conceptualizations and pedagogies.

As can be seen, these critiques mainly address the ontological and

epistemological status of connectivism (what kind of thing connectivism is—learning

theory, pedagogy, phenomenon—and in which sense connectivism is better than other

similar things of the same status—better than other learning theories, or better than

other pedagogies). In this reflection, we aimed to examine connectivism from an

additional point of view: we tried to avoid discussing the status of connectivism in order

to focus the discussion on the psychological contents of its postulates.

The conclusion of this discussion is that, taken from a psychological point of

view, connectivism, as currently formulated, should be abandoned as a learning theory

and as a theoretical guide for pedagogy in MOOCs and in Web 2.0 environments in

general. As such, we have reached the same conclusion as those who have discussed the

ontological and epistemological status of connectivism.

However, the need to abandon connectivism does not mean the abandonment of

MOOCs, which seem to be expanding rapidly among universities all over the world

(Bates, 2012). Therefore, if connectivism is not a valid learning theory, and considering

that xMOOCs are adopting old behavioral pedagogies, there is the urgent need to build

an adequate pedagogy for MOOCs, based on a valid learning theory. We have argued

that this learning theory could be the Vygotskian cultural psychology, and we have

proposed two initial and general principles for a future pedagogy of MOOCs: the

visualization of objects and the enabling of dialogic and sustained joint activity. Other

authors, such as Ravenscroft (2011) or Kop, Fournier, and Mak (2011), have also seen

in the Vygotskian tradition an inspiration for trying new pedagogies in Web 2.0. The

main concern of these authors has been enabling dialogue, which is related to the

second pedagogical principle outlined in this reflection.

As a final thought, it is perhaps worthwhile to note that the psychological

discussion conducted in this reflection against connectivism recalls some arguments—

especially the discussion on concept development—from old discussions against

associationism in the early and mid-20th century (e.g., Vygotsky, 1986, 1997; Fodor,

1983).

It seems that in its periodic reappearance in the psychological arena,

associationism is attempting to come back in the Web 2.0 era. Although connectivism

deserves to be fully considered and discussed, we think that it is also important in this

discussion not to forget why associationism was discarded in the past as a central

explanation in psychology. Some of those reasons may still be important nowadays.

Notes on contributors

Dr. Marc Clarà (PhD in psychology) is associate professor at the University of Barcelona and

research assistant at the eLearn Center of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. His research

interests include the relationship between knowledge and action, the nature of educational joint

activity, and the mediation of digital media in learning processes.

Dr. Elena Barberà (PhD in psychology) is the research director of the eLearn center at the

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and adjunct teacher at the South-eastern University of Florida.

Her research interests include e-assessment, learning strategies and teaching and learning

processes in online innovative contexts.

References

Armstrong, L. (2012, August 6). Coursera and MITx: Sustaining or disruptive? [Web

log message]. Retrieved from

http://www.changinghighereducation.com/2012/08/coursera-.html

Bates, T. (2012, August 5). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style

MOOCs? [Web log message]. Retrieved from

http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-

coursera-style-moocs/

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in

technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 12(3), 98–118. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index

Blunden, A. (2010). An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Leiden: Brill.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Coll, C., Onrubia, J., & Mauri, T. (2008). Ayudar a aprender en contextos educativos:

El ejercicio de la influencia educativa y el análisis de la enseñanza [Supporting

learning in educational contexts: The exercise of educational influence and the

analysis of teaching]. Revista de Educación, 346, 33–70. Retrieved from

http://www.revistaeducacion.mec.es/inicio.html

Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and

possibility. Seoul: Korean National Open University. Retrieved from

http://www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/Making-Sense-of-MOOCs.pdf

Downes, S. (2005). An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. Stephen’s Web (22

December). Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034

Downes, S. (2006, October 16). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Paper

presented at the Instructional Technology Forum. Retrieved from

http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/paper92/paper92.html

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and

learning networks. Retrieved from

http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsulfit Oy.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.

Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory

(pp. 19–38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156. Retrieved

from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjew20

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations,

findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24.

doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks:

Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review

of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–37. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index

Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy

to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 74–93.

Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of

the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3),

1–13. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index

Lange, M. (2012). Talk:Connectivism. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Connectivism

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of

participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de

Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International

Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 266–274). Lancaster: Lancaster

University. Retrieved from

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Mackness.ht

Plato. (2002). Meno. (J. Holbo & B. Waring, Trans.). Retrieved from

http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/rgrizzard/M316L_SP12/meno.pdf (Original work

published 380 B.C.)

Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding

and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. International Review of Research

in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139–160. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International

Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(1), January.

Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Siemens, G. (2006, November 12). Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime for the

self-amused? [Web log message]. Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm

Siemens, G. (2012, July 25). MOOCs are really a platform. [Web log message].

Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-

platform/

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student

interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.

doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Retrieved from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88324962/Connectivism-a-New-Learning-Theory

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V.

J. Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society (pp. 79–91).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A

methodological investigation. In R. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected

works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology

(pp. 233–345). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding.

Dordrecht: Reidel.

Wells, G., & Mejía Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 15, 379–428. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlns20

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

The Vygotskian tradition makes a distinction between technical tools (or primary artifacts) and

psychological tools (or secondary artifacts) (e.g.,Vygotsky, 1986, or Wartofsky, 1979). The

details of this distinction are outside the scope of this reflection; the important idea here is

that both are instrumental, both are conceptualized as (external) tools which mediate the

relationship subject-object.

Development, application, and evaluation of general English language MOOC: A MOOC for distant learners of English

Thesis

Full-text available

Jul 2024

The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has increased the popularity of distance education due to its emergent use, which was prevalently observable in Turkiye, especially in the compulsory English courses of higher education where English for general purposes is taught. Being an offset of distance education, massive open online courses (MOOCs) stand as a novel concept emerging at the beginning of this millennium. Such courses make use of online-based distance learning environments and openly present their readily available content to massive audiences at once with infinite scalability. By the same logic, if a MOOC provides language education, it is called a massive open online language course, or LMOOC, which has only been present for a decade and have a leeway to progress, but relevant studies are lacking in numbers, especially in the Turkish context. Basing its theoretical framework on the use of distance education in the conduction of compulsory English courses in Turkish higher education and the growing use of LMOOCs lately, the current thesis study had the overarching aim of developing, implementing, and evaluating a general English language MOOC (GELMOOC). The course was meticulously prepared by examining the compulsory English course syllabi in some Turkish state universities’ open education faculties. Then, following a one-month enrolment period that amassed a number of 2957 participants to the course, an academic term was allotted for the course’s completion, thereby starting the implementation. Thirdly commenced the main part of the study as evaluation, which entailed a quantitative approach with a single group pretest-posttest design. The evaluation of GELMOOC was three-fold. First, the Massive Open Online Interactive Language Learning Environment framework was used to analyse the effectiveness of the course by a number of 10 ELT instructors, and the results were descriptively analysed, which suggested that the course entailed high interactive language learning environment practices, except for communicational and assessment techniques. Secondly, student achievement in English for general purposes was measured prior to the course and after the implementation of the course, thus the pretest-posttest design. The findings revealed a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores in English among the course attendees. Thereafter, the participants completed a MOOC student satisfaction survey, the findings of which revealed high levels of learner satisfaction with regard to the course content, design, delivery, support, but with lower scores in assessment and communicational aspects again, parallel to the results of the interactive language learning environment framework. Lastly, whether these high levels of satisfaction had any impact on English achievement was analysed, which did not yield significant results.

Teaching English for general purposes through a MOOC in higher education: A quasi-experimental study to explore its effects on learner achievement and satisfaction

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024
Educ Inform Tech

The COVID-19 pandemic has notably increased the use of distance education, particularly in Türkiye’s higher education English courses. Even after the normalisation process, compulsory English courses in Türkiye, the learners of which receive education in English for general purposes, are still being taught via distance education. Such a practice could well be implemented with a massive open online course (MOOC), called a language MOOC (LMOOC). To this end, the current study focused on the development, implementation, and evaluation of a General English Language MOOC (GELMOOC) designed according to the syllabi of Turkish universities. With 2957 participants enrolled, the course’s effectiveness was assessed through a single group pretest-posttest design, employing a quasi-experimental study. Accordingly, learners’ language achievement levels were assessed prior to and after the GELMOOC treatment. Then, a learner satisfaction survey was also administered post-course. Results showed significant improvements in English proficiency and high satisfaction with the course’s content, design, and delivery. The findings highlight the potential of and areas for improvement in LMOOCs in the literature and the foreign language teaching context.

Where is the reflexive ‘I’ in the Elements of AI?

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024

AI's opportunities and potential high-risk consequences for individuals and societies render mass AI literacy imperative. MOOCs are one effective conduit for its provision. However, MOOCs remain epistemologically one-sided when lifelong learning steadily shifts towards a reflexive epistemology whereby subjectivities and expert knowledge intersect, problematising the latter's relevance to agents when disregarding the first. Addressing the underex-plored epistemologies of AI literacy MOOCs and kindled by transformative learning in late modernity, this paper examines how the design of the MOOC Elements of AI prompts reflexivity over AI. A Bloom's taxonomy-based qualitative content analysis categorised 16 learning objectives and 25 assessments according to cognitive processes and knowledge dimensions they serve. Results showed adequate but delayed instruction for reflexivity and a benign constructive misalignment, with assessment hitting higher and wider processes and dimensions than the learning objectives. Following the fleshing out of results, their discussion leads to EAI-specific and general enhancements for identity-based transformative AI literacy MOOCs catering to scale and individuality. ARTICLE HISTORY

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS AND THE ROLE OF MOOCS

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2018

Saima Bashir

Development in the quality, efficiency and equity of education, to a major extent depends on the nexus of teaching and learning, in turn influenced by the quality of teachers. Teacher is a significant factor influencing the quality of education. Thus, professional competence of a teacher can play a significant role in enhancing the same. Teachers are expected to keep themselves updated with advancements in their subject, pedagogy, technology and other relevant parameters of teaching learning process. To realize this goal, teacher education programmes (both in-service and pre-service) can integrate resources not only textual, but also the accessible open educational resources, thus equipping teachers to face challenges and meet demands of education system. In this context MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are a recent addition to online learning opportunities. It is a new online medium for course delivery and learning, thereby enabling individuals to participate in the same course with good quality content and interactive tools for learning. This paper focuses on the role of MOOCs towards teacher's professional development. MOOCS is an emerging technology that has caught the attention of corporations, administrators, educators and learners alike and has compelled them to look at learning, teaching, and education through a different lens. MOOCS can help educators learn some fundamentals about online learning and apply what they learned to the courses they will teach. MOOCS can also bridge the gap for the areas that have limited resources or lack funding for professional development. MOOCS can provide opportunities to educators and give them access to knowledge, skills, and learning opportunities. MOOCS can promote professional growth while providing new knowledge or skills for employers. Although MOOCS introduce pedagogy differently than in person training, educators must remain motivated to learn so they can share their knowledge with their students. Performing professional teacher development via MOOCS can provide an extended network in which to create a community for learning with like-minded peers in similar situations. In this way these courses can provide an extended peer community that can further increase the learning effects of a course. The potential for community building and exchange of ideas, best practices, and lessons learned increases significantly. MOOCS providers are starting to create courses specifically for professional teacher development. However, specific course offerings for teachers will need to increase in order to ensure success.

Snapshots from the Lived World of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A phenomenological study of learning large

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2014

This paper reports on preliminary findings of a phenomenological study examining students’ everyday experiences of learning in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). The current discourse surrounding MOOCs is powerful, with promises of an epochal shift in post-secondary education, unprecedented openness, democratic pedagogies, less hierarchical knowledge creation, and unimagined scalability: all of which require critical examination. But with a brief five-year history, research has yet to confirm or refute these bold claims rationalizing the popularity and efficacy of these big virtual learning environments and their disruptive, game-changing potential for education. A swift and timely “counterbalance to some of the more hyperbolic elements of current discourse” is needed, in particular, through providing accounts of the complex realities of learners’ actual experiences (Selwyn 2009). The study collected and analysed experiential moments recollected by “completers” while learning in a Massive Open Online Course. For the purposes of this study, a “completer” (Kizilcec, Piech & Schneider, 2013, April) was defined as a student who enrolled in at least one MOOC and in which they accomplished the majority of activities, assignments, quizzes and/or examinations set out by the curriculum. Data was generated via two main sources: written self-protocols (daily journals maintained by four adults engaged in a self-chosen MOOC) as well as in-depth phenomenological interviews with six MOOC completers recruited via snowball sampling. Our study revealed several surprising results. The MOOC completers consistently described a unique and powerful sphere of intimacy that developed for them with their MOOC instructor, most especially in the context of the pre-recorded instructor videos. Too, our findings seem to confirm Cormier’s (2009) conjecture that “eventedness”—the sense of specialness characteristic of other “big”, shared events like a rock concert or major sporting event—may uniquely distinguish MOOCs from other online learning experiences. The paper provides several rich, experiential “snapshots” or textual descriptions of learning moments and recollected events in a MOOC. Through phenomenological analysis of these lived experience descriptions, we show how the virtual learning landscapes afforded by these large-scale online environments may create unique conditions, situations, and relations of pedagogical effect and influence.

Generative AI and the future of connectivist learning in higher education

Article

Aug 2024

The burgeoning field of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) presents a new avenue for enhancing teaching and learning practices within higher education. While existing research has predominantly focused on GenAI’s capabilities to perform specific educational tasks, its potential as an interactive agent engaging in human-like conversations and forming new connections remains underexplored. Drawing upon a connectivist lens that recognizes learning occurs within networks of interactions, we investigate how GenAI tools can contribute to connectivist learning within social entrepreneurship education. Through qualitative interviews with multiple key stakeholder groups, this study reveals three dimensions of new dialogic spaces that can be enabled by GenAI: collaborative learning, knowledge connectivity, and theory-practice integration. This study makes several contributions. First, it expands upon current discussions on AI and higher education, moving beyond tool-based acceptance to actively exploring GenAI as an active learning agent. Second, it contributes to the connectivist learning literature by demonstrating the potential of GenAI tools not only as interaction facilitators but also as interaction agents that create new learning interactions across different levels. Finally, it offers practical insights by bridging the voices and perspectives of different stakeholders to envision a future where GenAI coexists with traditional educational practices and agents.

25 Years of Digital Health Education - Looking Back and Looking Forward: A Narrative Review (Preprint)

Article

May 2024
J MED INTERNET RES

Background The last 25 years have seen enormous progression in digital technologies across the whole of the health service, including health education. The rapid evolution and use of web-based and digital techniques have been significantly transforming this field since the beginning of the new millennium. These advancements continue to progress swiftly, even more so after the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective This narrative review aims to outline and discuss the developments that have taken place in digital medical education across the defined time frame. In addition, evidence for potential opportunities and challenges facing digital medical education in the near future was collated for analysis. Methods Literature reviews were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Embase. The participants and learners in this study included medical students, physicians in training or continuing professional development, nurses, paramedics, and patients. Results Evidence of the significant steps in the development of digital medical education in the past 25 years was presented and analyzed in terms of application, impact, and implications for the future. The results were grouped into the following themes for discussion: learning management systems; telemedicine (in digital medical education); mobile health; big data analytics; the metaverse, augmented reality, and virtual reality; the COVID-19 pandemic; artificial intelligence; and ethics and cybersecurity. Conclusions Major changes and developments in digital medical education have occurred from around the start of the new millennium. Key steps in this journey include technical developments in teleconferencing and learning management systems, along with a marked increase in mobile device use for accessing learning over this time. While the pace of evolution in digital medical education accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, further rapid progress has continued since the resolution of the pandemic. Many of these changes are currently being widely used in health education and other fields, such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence, providing significant future potential. The opportunities these technologies offer must be balanced against the associated challenges in areas such as cybersecurity, the integrity of web-based assessments, ethics, and issues of digital privacy to ensure that digital medical education continues to thrive in the future.

The politics of networked learning in an age of austerity

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2014

Chris Jones

Networked learning has always had a connection to a set of pedagogic values and it has defined itself as linked to the development of information and communication technologies. These values and the technologies which allow for the development of contemporary networked learning mean that the field has an implicit politics. In an age of austerity what are the implications for networked learning? The development of networked learning largely coincided with the development of neo-liberal politics in advanced industrial countries and the technologies deployed to enable networked learning are largely the outcome of design and development carried out by large multi-national US based corporations. This backdrop of neo-liberal corporatism was called into question by the banking crisis of 2008 and the conversion of a private debt crisis into a sovereign debt crisis. In this process public austerity has become a dominant consideration in policy for higher education. Government has changed its relationship to higher education, most notably in the UK (focused on England), and is generally trying to both reduce overall expenditure and at the same time ensure either equivalent outputs or improved levels of output. The drive for productivity gains, a motivation for ‘more for less', informs the hype and policy drive behind xMOOCs because they seem to offer a way to enable cheaper and wider access to higher education. This paper takes a critical look at the way austerity politics are revising the values and affecting the development of technologies for networked learning and suggests ways that researchers will need to engage with resistance to aspects of austerity politics.

From OER to MOOCs: An Evolutionary Analysis and Its Neoliberal Context

Chapter

May 2024

Seb Dianati

Well before the MOOC, there was something quite similar without the popularity. It was called the Open Educational Resource (OER) movement. This chapter endeavours to delineate the intricate lineage of MOOCs, paying homage to its antecedent, the OER. By charting its evolutionary course, we gain insights into the expansive growth, nuances, and multifaceted dimensions of various MOOCs. Research into MOOCs is vast; however, critiques are very slim. Understandably, how could someone critique such a good thing? Well, as MOOCs started changing, so did their interests, and this chapter aims to highlight that such changes are consistent with the forces of global Neoliberalism.

The emergence of autonomy in intertwingled learning environments: a model of teaching and learning

Article

Mar 2024

The Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC

Article

Full-text available

May 2010

'CCK08' was a unique event on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge within a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) in 2008. It was a course and a network about the emergent practices and the theory of Connectivism, proposed by George Siemens as a new learning theory for a digital age. It was convened and led by Stephen Downes and George Siemens through the University of Manitoba, Canada. Although the event was not formally advertised, more than 2000 participants from all over the world registered for the course, with 24 of these enrolled for credit. The course presented a unique opportunity to discover more about how people learn in large open networks, which offer extensive diversity, connectivity and opportunities for sharing knowledge. Learners are increasingly exercising autonomy regarding where, when, how, what and with whom to learn. To do this, they often select technologies independent of those offered by traditional courses. In CCK08 this autonomy was encouraged and learning on the course was distributed across a variety of platforms. This paper explores the perspectives of some of the participants on their learning experiences in the course, in relation to the characteristics of connectivism outlined by Downes, i.e. autonomy, diversity, openness and connectedness/interactivity. The findings are based on an online survey which was emailed to all active participants and email interview data from self-selected interviewees. The research found that autonomy, diversity, openness and connectedness/interactivity are indeed characteristics of a MOOC, but that they present paradoxes which are difficult to resolve in an online course. The more autonomous, diverse and open the course, and the more connected the learners, the more the potential for their learning to be limited by the lack of structure, support and moderation normally associated with an online course, and the more they seek to engage in traditional groups as opposed to an open network. These responses constrain the possibility of having the positive experiences of autonomy, diversity, openness and connectedness/interactivity normally expected of an online network. The research suggests that the question of whether a large open online network can be fused with a course has yet to be resolved. Further research studies with larger samples are needed, as is an investigation into the ethical considerations which may need to be taken into account when testing new theory and practice on course participants.

Supporting learning in educational contexts: The exercise of educational influence and the analysis of teaching

Article

Full-text available

May 2008

This article describes the main approaches and results of a number of research studies based on educational influence mechanisms. Its theoretical reference points reside in the support processes of the ZPD, the educational discourse, the ecological analysis of the classroom and the activity theory. The central thesis is that the mechanisms of educational influence take place in the scope of the joint activity that students and educators display around the contents and learning tasks, doing so via the organization patterns adopted by this activity and the existing semiotic resources in the participants' language. From a methodological viewpoint, an observational strategy of case study is adopted and a method of analysis based on several units and levels is proposed. Results provide evidence of the presence of two large mechanisms of educational influence -the progressive transfer of teacher's control over the learning process to the students, and the construction of shared semiotic systems- and identify different factors and elements involved in its concretion: students' and teacher's contribution to the unfolding of both mechanisms, the follow-up processes and the teacher's assessment, the ICT role as psychological instruments acting as bridges in the joint activity, or the definition of the situational or institutional context of the activity Finally, some of the contributions and the boundaries of the results to the field of educational practice and to the processes of educational influence are discussed.

Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2012

John Daniel

MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are the educational buzzword of 2012. Media frenzy surrounds them and commercial interests have moved in. Sober analysis is overwhelmed by apocalyptic predictions that ignore the history of earlier educational technology fads. The paper describes the short history of MOOCs and sets them in the wider context of the evolution of educational technology and open/distance learning. While the hype about MOOCs presaging a revolution in higher education has focussed on their scale, the real revolution is that universities with scarcity at the heart of their business models are embracing openness. We explore the paradoxes that permeate the MOOCs movement and explode some myths enlisted in its support. The competition inherent in the gadarene rush to offer MOOCs will create a sea change by obliging participating institutions to revisit their missions and focus on teaching quality and students as never before. It could also create a welcome deflationary trend in the costs of higher education. Explanatory Note During my time as a Fellow at the Korea National Open University (KNOU) in September 2012 media and web coverage of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) was intense. Since one of the requirements of the fellowship was a research paper, exploring the phenomenon of MOOCs seemed an appropriate topic. This essay had to be submitted to KNOU on 25 September 2012 but the MOOCs story is still evolving rapidly. I shall continue to follow it. 'What is new is not true, and what is true is not new'. Hans Eysenck on Freudianism This paper is published by JIME following its first release as a paper produced as part of a fellowship at the Korea National Open University (KNOU). Both the original and this republication are available non-exclusively under Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY). Apart from this note and minor editorial adjustments the paper is unchanged. Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation

Book

Jan 1991

An interdisciplinary theory of activity

Article

Jan 2010

A. Blunden

Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding

Article

Nov 1982
Leonardo

Activity theory and individual and social transformation

Chapter

Jan 1999

Yrjö Engeström

The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology

Article

Dec 1984

* I would like to thank Bill Batchelder, David Laberge, and Ken Wexler for a number of interesting discussions which helped me in writing this review.

Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. CUP, Cambridge

Book

Jul 1998

Etienne Wenger-Trayner

Prologue Part I. Practice: Introduction I 1. Meaning 2. Community 3. Learning 4. Boundary 5. Locality Coda I. Knowing in practice Part II. Identity: Introduction II 6. Identity in practice 7. Participation and non-participation 8. Modes of belonging 9. Identification and negotiability Coda II. Learning communities Conclusion: Introduction III 10. Learning architectures 11. Organizations 12. Education Epilogue.

Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization

Article

Feb 2001

Yrjö Engeström

Cultural-historical activity theory has evolved through three generations of research. The emerging third generation of activity theory takes two interacting activity systems as its minimal unit of analysis, inviting us to focus research efforts on the challenges and possibilities of inter-organizational learning. Activity theory and its concept of expansive learning are examined with the help of four questions: 1. Who are the subjects of learning? 2. Why do they learn? 3. What do they learn? 4. How do they learn? Five central principles of activity theory are presented, namely activity system as unit of analysis, multi-voicedness of activity, historicity of activity, contradictions as driving force of change in activity, and expansive cycles as possible form of transformation in activity. Together the four questions and five principles form a matrix which is used to present a study of expansive learning in a hospital setting in Finland. In conclusion, implications of the framework for our understanding of the increasingly important horizontal dimension of learning are discussed.