Advertisement

A Crisis of Identity? Contradictions and New Opportunities

  • Allison Littlejohn
  • Nina Hood
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)

Abstract

Drawing on the previous chapters, this chapter explores four tensions that characterise MOOCs. Although MOOCs are seen as an attempt to democratise education, they often privilege the elite, rather than acting as an equaliser. MOOCS are also considered a way to radically open access to education, yet they tend to offer education to people who are already able to learn rather than providing opportunities for everyone. While MOOCs are positioned as a disrupting force, often they replicate the customs and values associated with formal education, rather than unsettling educational norms. MOOCs are conceived as social networks that allow learners to learn through dialogue with others, yet many learners have limited interactions with others. Even when learners have the ability to learn autonomously, they often are expected to conform to course rules, rather than deciding their own learning strategies. These problems may be accentuated where MOOCs are viewed as a set of products (content and credentials) on sale to student consumers, rather than as a transformational educational experience for learners. The view of MOOCs as a product for the consumer learner may overly simplify the complex, transformational processes that underscore learning. Particularly where underlying automated systems try to improve progression by quantifying learners’ behaviours and ‘correcting’ these to fit an ‘ideal’ learner profile or where algorithms and metrics are based on convectional education, rather than on future-facing forms of learning. This chapter examines these problems with MOOCs, offering promising future directions.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Vicky Murphy of The Open University for comments and for proofing this chapter.

References

  1. Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 312–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dillon, J., Bosch, N., Chetlur, M., Wanigasekara, N., Ambrose, G. A., Sengupta, B., & D’Mello, S. K. (2016). Student emotion, co-occurrence, and dropout in a MOOC context. In EDM (pp. 353–357).Google Scholar
  3. Downes, S. (2011). The MOOC guide. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/themoocguide/home.
  4. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2005). Peripheral vision: Expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies, 26(5), 779–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice (Vol. 12). Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, R., & Sharples, M. (2014, September 16–19). Innovative pedagogy at massive scale: Teaching and learning in MOOCs. In C. Rensing, S. de Freitas, T. Ley, & P. J. Muñoz-Merino (Eds.), Open learning and teaching in educational communities. Paper presented at 9th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Graz, Austria (pp. 98–111). Cham, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hakkarainen, K. P., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives.Google Scholar
  9. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2005). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Knorr-Cetina, K. K. (2001). Postsocial relations: Theorizing sociality in a postsocial environment. In B. Smart & G. Ritzer (Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 520–537). London, UK: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010, May 3–4). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, (pp. 266–275). Lancaster: University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  15. Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149.Google Scholar
  16. Nickerson, J. (2013). Crowd Work and Collective Learning. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-enhanced Professional Learning (pp. 39–50). Routledge: NY.Google Scholar
  17. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education. Cambridge, UK: Polity Books.Google Scholar
  19. Siadaty, M., Gasevic, D., Jovanovic, J., Pata, K., Milikic, N., Holocher-Ertl, T., … & Hatala, M. (2012). Self-regulated workplace learning: A pedagogical framework and semantic web-based environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 75.Google Scholar
  20. Siemens, G., Downes, S., Cormier, D., & Kop, R. (2010). PLENK 2010–Personal learning environments, networks and knowledge. Retrieved from http://connect.downes.ca/.
  21. Tynjälä, P., Virtanen, A., Klemola, U., Kostiainen, E., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2016). Developing social competence and other generic skills in teacher education: Applying the model of integrative pedagogy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wen, M., Yang, D., & Rose, C. (2014, July). Sentiment analysis in MOOC discussion forums: What does it tell us? In Educational Data Mining 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations