In this inquiry work an early realization is the importance I need to give to differentiating between cMOOCs and xMOOCs. Tony Bates gives I believe a good job of describing these two categories with cMOOCs being the first version of MOOCs which rely on connectivism, where typically a content expert facilitates a community of practice that is more student driven. xMOOCs are characterized as an autonomous student experience with the subject matter expert teaching through video lecture potentially with other student support materials with a certification option available to students (Bates,T., October 23,2014).
The differences in these versions of MOOCs have provoked questions for me around which container of MOOC can be a fit for different subject matter. For example, I am learning to code using SWIFT right now through an xMOOC and it feels like a fit. There are no reasons I need to as a beginner coder to discuss my work with others, in fact I would prefer not to. The course is meeting my needs as I walk through the coding activities duplicating the instructor lecture and practice tutorials. By the time I am ready to share my work with others or learn in a community I am going to be done with the MOOC container and I will be looking towards technologies that support inquiry in this subject likely through github or discord which support communities of subjet matter focus. I am not seeking community through this MOOC, I want this course to help me gain entry into other communities by teaching me the language of those communities. This in my experience is an xMOOC matching discipline to the educational technology container.
On the other hand, in the course my group experienced together, the Science of Well Being the xMOOC approach felt like a mismatch with content. Students flocked to this course during the covid-19 pandemic where we know people were feeling isolated, struggling to adapt to change and were likely there to seek relief from isolation with community. The course activities are concerned with psychological assessments and while Dr. Santos mentions the idea of community as one of the ways that well-being is scientifically proven to be improved it is not readily available through the MOOC design. The container of the xMOOC in this case is not the right design for people to go beyond superficially know more about well-being to establishing a practice of well-being together. When Dr. Santos says the community being together is part of how you create conditions for improved well-being but the design of the experience lacks this element for me it’s a mismatch of MOOC type to subject matter.
Bates, T. (October 23, 2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. Moderated by Tony Bates, Research Associate, Contact North|Contact Nord. https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/
May 12, 2022 at 7:23 am
Hi Karen,
I appreciate your differentiation and reflection on cMOOCs versus xMOOCs. My experience with MOOCs to this point seems to have been exclusively with xMOOCs, and I’m curious now to know whether the cMOOCs have declined, phased out, or if they are still common and available. Did you come across any statistics relating to this in your research? I have a feeling that data on MOOCs might be somewhat limited due to proprietary and private enterprise issues, but you never know, right?! 🙂
Thanks,
Alisha
May 17, 2022 at 11:48 am
Great question, it really got me digging into the meaning of the two definitions more deeply so thanks to you. I think the xMOOC has seemingly become the dominant MOOC format because of the way they are packaged in a recognizable way to create a consumer product. xMOOCs are seemingly more prevalent mainly because of the optics. We recognize them as MOOCs. The xMOOC, with its expert at the centre traditional lecture model is cost effective as it’s plug and play and scaled to allow many participants with a product that looks familiar and is packaged for easy consumption and registration.
The cMOOC started in higher education and they do continue, Dave Cromier describes it in the video referenced below as an event that uses existing networks where people are invited into the learning (Cromier, D. 2010) the certification may or not be part of the learning and the network of people participating is the learning environment where people can come and go out of it making it hard to track participants. The definitions that Cromier forwards means that cMOOCs are not as trackable as the xMOOCs. I think of the Github community I recently joined where I am lurking around watching the experts chat to one another about AR development, hoping to even understand the language enough to ask the right questions, the youtube videos I am watching and the feeds I am following on Twitter to learn about AR. In Dave’s definition of cMOOCs that’s me joining a cMOOC. The definition is not as easily boxed up and recognizable as the xMOOCs so quantifying the participation is far more difficult because the boundaries of them are so loose. They are not tied to an organization (although they could be) so we likely have more learners in cMOOCS but quantifying the numbers of learners is more difficult than wth the xMOOC model.
References:
Cromier, D. (2010). What is a MOOC? [Video].YouTube.https://youtu.be/eW3gMGqcZQc
May 12, 2022 at 7:23 am
Hi Karen,
I appreciate your differentiation and reflection on cMOOCs versus xMOOCs. My experience with MOOCs to this point seems to have been exclusively with xMOOCs, and I’m curious now to know whether the cMOOCs have declined, phased out, or if they are still common and available. Did you come across any statistics relating to this in your research? I have a feeling that data on MOOCs might be somewhat limited due to proprietary and private enterprise issues, but you never know, right?! 🙂
Thanks,
Alisha
May 17, 2022 at 11:48 am
Great question, it really got me digging into the meaning of the two definitions more deeply so thanks to you. I think the xMOOC has seemingly become the dominant MOOC format because of the way they are packaged in a recognizable way to create a consumer product. xMOOCs are seemingly more prevalent mainly because of the optics. We recognize them as MOOCs. The xMOOC, with its expert at the centre traditional lecture model is cost effective as it’s plug and play and scaled to allow many participants with a product that looks familiar and is packaged for easy consumption and registration.
The cMOOC started in higher education and they do continue, Dave Cromier describes it in the video referenced below as an event that uses existing networks where people are invited into the learning (Cromier, D. 2010) the certification may or not be part of the learning and the network of people participating is the learning environment where people can come and go out of it making it hard to track participants. The definitions that Cromier forwards means that cMOOCs are not as trackable as the xMOOCs. I think of the Github community I recently joined where I am lurking around watching the experts chat to one another about AR development, hoping to even understand the language enough to ask the right questions, the youtube videos I am watching and the feeds I am following on Twitter to learn about AR. In Dave’s definition of cMOOCs that’s me joining a cMOOC. The definition is not as easily boxed up and recognizable as the xMOOCs so quantifying the participation is far more difficult because the boundaries of them are so loose. They are not tied to an organization (although they could be) so we likely have more learners in cMOOCS but quantifying the numbers of learners is more difficult than wth the xMOOC model.
References:
Cromier, D. (2010). What is a MOOC? [Video].YouTube.https://youtu.be/eW3gMGqcZQc
May 16, 2022 at 2:09 pm
Hi Karen,
Great reflection. I am also fascinated with how best to apply learning theories in a given context.
Did you get a chance to read Ertmer & Newby’s (1993, 2013) paper on learning theories, learner skill level, and task difficulty?
It has helped me make sense of when to apply each theory.
Kinds regards,
Ben
References:
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piq.21143
May 16, 2022 at 2:09 pm
Hi Karen,
Great reflection. I am also fascinated with how best to apply learning theories in a given context.
Did you get a chance to read Ertmer & Newby’s (1993, 2013) paper on learning theories, learner skill level, and task difficulty?
It has helped me make sense of when to apply each theory.
Kinds regards,
Ben
References:
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piq.21143