Well here I go again. A number of people who read this blog are fellow students from E-learning and digital cultures, an excellent MOOC from Coursera. As an educator in an organization looking at making more of online learning and working for a government that wants to move to open government - why not do an online course on open education?
For h817open students, if you didn't do EDCMOOC, have a look over my past few posts to get a feel for my thinking (and as an ad for a MOOC well worth doing next time around).
I won't be doing every activity I don't think in my limited time with other MOOCs going on, writing projects and oh yes, my job. I will aim for the badges though (jealous of my son who is a cub scout lol).
Showing posts with label MOOCs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MOOCs. Show all posts
Friday, March 15, 2013
Thursday, February 07, 2013
MOOC-HING about
I'm doing a MOOC on e-learning and digital cultures, as well as two other MOOCs (philosophy and astrobiology) and now find myself pontificating on the nature of MOOCs. It's kinda meta-MOOCing which is hard! What does it mean to be open? What difference does it make that the course is online? How does it being massive make it hard to navigate? What's the point anyway?
One of the MOOCs I'm doing (astrobiology) because I'm interested in the topic, because I'm preparing two papers for a colloquium and hopefully paper-based publishing, and because (and kind of as an afterthought) it intersects with something I teach on paleoclimate. The MOOC on philosophy is pure indulgence I guess, but it may find a place in my thinking - I mean who doesn't want to think about how to think rightly (well ok plenty of people). This MOOC on e-learning and digital cultures I'm taking because in some way I'm meant to be an e-learning guru (well no, and I don't think that as such) or more properly a guide or adviser and tech-head.
Two of the MOOCs are a straight transfer from trad ed to web with vid lectures and quizzes. Kinda yawn but material is of good quality, of interest to me and at least in some cases inspiring (well done Dave Ward for making thinking about thinking worth thinking about). But is that it Clay Shirky? Is this all I can expect? Is Aaron Bady right that a MOOC is one step better than nothing? After all, I can read, Google, get hold of a book, find a web article etc? Why does a video make it any better? Can and will MOOCs evolve beyond this? As Gardner Campbell challenges, will we move up the scale of hierarchies of learning?
As I intimated before, the videos at least can inspire. I like a passionate teacher and I try to be the same - without the illusion that the act of teaching means learning will occur, and yet there is no reason to expect it won't. Information is communicated (though only one way) and the good thing about video is the pause button (think time). In real life face to face teaching, questions, learning activities, exercises and (if they can be done) problem based learning provide the real grist for the mill.
But most MOOCs for now run well short of this, learning in a small class with a mixture of modes (my class I have for 10 months is 15 this year). Yet this is better than nothing if I can hear what an expert has to say on a topic. Expertise takes time, it just doesn't appear to be some freely floating object on the WWW that is then freely available. Much talk of open access seems to miss the point that facts are discovered, knowledge constructed and wisdom hard fought for, some times ex nihilio, but that it just doesn't pop up on the net without cost at some time, to some one. At some point it is culturally shared by the world (all IP issues aside) but it came from sweat and toil and experience. The WWW flattening of knowledge should not be reduced to the nonsense spouted in the NMC Horizon report - 2013 Higher Education Edition which said 'As authoritative sources lose their importance'. Such crap has resulted in climate change denial, the spread of childhood diseases in the vaccination boycotts and the ID/evolution debates on school boards!!!!
But the e-learning and digital cultures MOOC is something more, a level up. Videos that illustrate ideas and themes rather than simply teaching them; articles that real people read rather than just academics and discussions using a variety of social media. I've had many Twitter adds and really feel like I'm building a PLN in the process (and I hope others are when they add me!). The chat groups for philosophy (perhaps at a stretch the astrobiology course) extend me as a learner well beyond the material by connecting me with other learners and helping me to think (about thinking). Now that is metacognitive. This isn't replacing experts but placing me into a rich web of experts in the making.
So MOOCs need social media - not because videos of experts are wrong but because learning comes in communities of learners and practitioners reflecting on their learning and what the experts have said. After all, if teaching is sharing expertise then learning is gaining that expertise by practicing what has been shared, reflecting on it and sharing it ourselves.
Ok, I'm rambling now - but I do think MOOCs have a future. I don't know that they are the future.
One of the MOOCs I'm doing (astrobiology) because I'm interested in the topic, because I'm preparing two papers for a colloquium and hopefully paper-based publishing, and because (and kind of as an afterthought) it intersects with something I teach on paleoclimate. The MOOC on philosophy is pure indulgence I guess, but it may find a place in my thinking - I mean who doesn't want to think about how to think rightly (well ok plenty of people). This MOOC on e-learning and digital cultures I'm taking because in some way I'm meant to be an e-learning guru (well no, and I don't think that as such) or more properly a guide or adviser and tech-head.
Two of the MOOCs are a straight transfer from trad ed to web with vid lectures and quizzes. Kinda yawn but material is of good quality, of interest to me and at least in some cases inspiring (well done Dave Ward for making thinking about thinking worth thinking about). But is that it Clay Shirky? Is this all I can expect? Is Aaron Bady right that a MOOC is one step better than nothing? After all, I can read, Google, get hold of a book, find a web article etc? Why does a video make it any better? Can and will MOOCs evolve beyond this? As Gardner Campbell challenges, will we move up the scale of hierarchies of learning?
As I intimated before, the videos at least can inspire. I like a passionate teacher and I try to be the same - without the illusion that the act of teaching means learning will occur, and yet there is no reason to expect it won't. Information is communicated (though only one way) and the good thing about video is the pause button (think time). In real life face to face teaching, questions, learning activities, exercises and (if they can be done) problem based learning provide the real grist for the mill.
But most MOOCs for now run well short of this, learning in a small class with a mixture of modes (my class I have for 10 months is 15 this year). Yet this is better than nothing if I can hear what an expert has to say on a topic. Expertise takes time, it just doesn't appear to be some freely floating object on the WWW that is then freely available. Much talk of open access seems to miss the point that facts are discovered, knowledge constructed and wisdom hard fought for, some times ex nihilio, but that it just doesn't pop up on the net without cost at some time, to some one. At some point it is culturally shared by the world (all IP issues aside) but it came from sweat and toil and experience. The WWW flattening of knowledge should not be reduced to the nonsense spouted in the NMC Horizon report - 2013 Higher Education Edition which said 'As authoritative sources lose their importance'. Such crap has resulted in climate change denial, the spread of childhood diseases in the vaccination boycotts and the ID/evolution debates on school boards!!!!
But the e-learning and digital cultures MOOC is something more, a level up. Videos that illustrate ideas and themes rather than simply teaching them; articles that real people read rather than just academics and discussions using a variety of social media. I've had many Twitter adds and really feel like I'm building a PLN in the process (and I hope others are when they add me!). The chat groups for philosophy (perhaps at a stretch the astrobiology course) extend me as a learner well beyond the material by connecting me with other learners and helping me to think (about thinking). Now that is metacognitive. This isn't replacing experts but placing me into a rich web of experts in the making.
So MOOCs need social media - not because videos of experts are wrong but because learning comes in communities of learners and practitioners reflecting on their learning and what the experts have said. After all, if teaching is sharing expertise then learning is gaining that expertise by practicing what has been shared, reflecting on it and sharing it ourselves.
Ok, I'm rambling now - but I do think MOOCs have a future. I don't know that they are the future.
Saturday, February 02, 2013
What is Philosophy?
As well as doing the MOOC on e-learning and online cultures, I'm doing the Intro to Philosophy MOOC. I did first year philosophy at Monash University many years ago and have reads bits and pieces since then, and have so far enjoyed this MOOC.
What is Philosophy?
The lecture gave a few definitions that are worth comparing and contrasting.
‘The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things, in the broadest possible sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest possible sense of the term.’ (Wilfrid Sellars)
This definition is pretty broad and pretty vague. What do we mean by things when that normally refers to objects? And what is hang together? Logical order, causal nature?
‘Philosophy is an activity that uses reasoning and rigorous argument to promote human flourishing’ (Martha Nussbaum, quoting Epicurus)
I like this definition because it is teleological - i.e. it tells us what philosophy is for - to promote human flourishing. This is certainly a worthy goal, but it leaves unanswered what this might leook like. It seems to me too that the means are not enough to reach the ends. While reasoning is a good thing and rigorous arguments mean we can be on a solid foundation (assuming our starting assumptions are correct), humans do not flourish on reason and argument alone. What of love? Feelings? Emotions? These things do not come from argument alone and are essential to human flourishing. It seems this definition would favour logic and the Western tradition, but what of narrative philosophy for example (see for example The Philosopher's Dog by Raimond Gaita).
The lecturer adds this definition 'The activity of working out the right way of thinking about things'. Philosophy is something you do, and a process of working out how to think about things. It is a method in this definition, not so much about the answers reached. This leads onto:
'Often the worst thing to do with what looks like a real philosophical question is to answer it. It can get in the way of fuller understanding of what the problem really is and where it comes from.’ (Barry Stroud)
We need to take care not to arrive at the destination too quickly. I still think we need answers, but how quickly we get to them also matters. Few things important enough to discuss philosophically have easy answers! However, the Rorty quote below almost seems too preoccupied with the question. Still, do we ask the right sorts of questions? I suspect the obsession with the nature of questioning is what can give philosophers a bad name. It's certainly a discipline for pedants.
‘The one sort of question that can never get a definite answer is a question that asks about itself. It is precisely reflection on the adequacy of questions, rather than answers, that has determined the history of philosophy.’ (Richard Rorty)
Iris makes the interesting point however (and I won't repeat the entire quote here) that the progress of philosophy of building theories but always coming back to the beginning, the nature of the questions being asked. Part of this is according to Rorty is that no question can 'guarantee its own permanent relevance.' That said, I think that there are a number of questions (perhaps not always well defined) that have lasting relevance like 'what is the meaning of life?' or 'does God exist?' or 'what does it mean to be human?' or 'what is love?'. Some things don't go away and some things never change! These are all important questions, and the goal of philosophy should be as Isaiah Berlin pointed out to 'to assist [people] to understand themselves and thus operate in the open and not wildly, in the dark.'
So the questioning of philosophy has to be about asking the right questions about things that are important to us, to help us to flourish as human beings. We need to ask the right questions and to think deeply about them. This is not simply because we want or need fine arguments, but because we have big visions about what life should be like, and our questioning leads from this visioning forward into the world. Putnam says
'Philosophy needs vision and argument… there is something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains arguments, however good, which are not inspired by some genuine vision, and something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains a vision, however inspiring, which is unsupported by arguments…'
As a theist, part of this vision is a world made new by God through the defeat of evil by Jesus on the cross. Questions I ask include, if it is true that God exists and evil exists, how has he acted to defeat evil? How do I live in light of this victory in a world where evil still apparently still exists. Note how my vision comes out of some assumptions about evil and not others. Our world views guide us this way. Because the bible has more to say about what God has done about evil rather than its origins, my vision of human flourishing focuses on how this plays out. Still, this doesn't mean the problem of evil is irrelevant to me, just not as primary as it might be for others.
What is Philosophy?
The lecture gave a few definitions that are worth comparing and contrasting.
‘The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things, in the broadest possible sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest possible sense of the term.’ (Wilfrid Sellars)
This definition is pretty broad and pretty vague. What do we mean by things when that normally refers to objects? And what is hang together? Logical order, causal nature?
‘Philosophy is an activity that uses reasoning and rigorous argument to promote human flourishing’ (Martha Nussbaum, quoting Epicurus)
I like this definition because it is teleological - i.e. it tells us what philosophy is for - to promote human flourishing. This is certainly a worthy goal, but it leaves unanswered what this might leook like. It seems to me too that the means are not enough to reach the ends. While reasoning is a good thing and rigorous arguments mean we can be on a solid foundation (assuming our starting assumptions are correct), humans do not flourish on reason and argument alone. What of love? Feelings? Emotions? These things do not come from argument alone and are essential to human flourishing. It seems this definition would favour logic and the Western tradition, but what of narrative philosophy for example (see for example The Philosopher's Dog by Raimond Gaita).
The lecturer adds this definition 'The activity of working out the right way of thinking about things'. Philosophy is something you do, and a process of working out how to think about things. It is a method in this definition, not so much about the answers reached. This leads onto:
'Often the worst thing to do with what looks like a real philosophical question is to answer it. It can get in the way of fuller understanding of what the problem really is and where it comes from.’ (Barry Stroud)
We need to take care not to arrive at the destination too quickly. I still think we need answers, but how quickly we get to them also matters. Few things important enough to discuss philosophically have easy answers! However, the Rorty quote below almost seems too preoccupied with the question. Still, do we ask the right sorts of questions? I suspect the obsession with the nature of questioning is what can give philosophers a bad name. It's certainly a discipline for pedants.
‘The one sort of question that can never get a definite answer is a question that asks about itself. It is precisely reflection on the adequacy of questions, rather than answers, that has determined the history of philosophy.’ (Richard Rorty)
Iris makes the interesting point however (and I won't repeat the entire quote here) that the progress of philosophy of building theories but always coming back to the beginning, the nature of the questions being asked. Part of this is according to Rorty is that no question can 'guarantee its own permanent relevance.' That said, I think that there are a number of questions (perhaps not always well defined) that have lasting relevance like 'what is the meaning of life?' or 'does God exist?' or 'what does it mean to be human?' or 'what is love?'. Some things don't go away and some things never change! These are all important questions, and the goal of philosophy should be as Isaiah Berlin pointed out to 'to assist [people] to understand themselves and thus operate in the open and not wildly, in the dark.'
So the questioning of philosophy has to be about asking the right questions about things that are important to us, to help us to flourish as human beings. We need to ask the right questions and to think deeply about them. This is not simply because we want or need fine arguments, but because we have big visions about what life should be like, and our questioning leads from this visioning forward into the world. Putnam says
'Philosophy needs vision and argument… there is something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains arguments, however good, which are not inspired by some genuine vision, and something disappointing about a philosophical work that contains a vision, however inspiring, which is unsupported by arguments…'
As a theist, part of this vision is a world made new by God through the defeat of evil by Jesus on the cross. Questions I ask include, if it is true that God exists and evil exists, how has he acted to defeat evil? How do I live in light of this victory in a world where evil still apparently still exists. Note how my vision comes out of some assumptions about evil and not others. Our world views guide us this way. Because the bible has more to say about what God has done about evil rather than its origins, my vision of human flourishing focuses on how this plays out. Still, this doesn't mean the problem of evil is irrelevant to me, just not as primary as it might be for others.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Joining the MOOC wagon
A lot has been said recently about MOOCs. Some see them as the next greatest thing in education, the Messiah of bricks and mortar instutions. To others they are more of the naughty boy, ads instead of real content. To others still, while it is clear MOOCs more or less recreate on a larger scale the problems of traditional learning, they make it available to a wider audience.
Confession time; I found the Coursera website and was like a kid in a candy shop (lolly store to be more Australian). I've signed up to a slew of courses and am looking forward to doing things that really interest me and cost me nothing! Will I learn from it? No doubt because a) I'm motivated and b) I'll put in the extra time when I can, either at the time or afterwards. Hoping not bitten off more than I can chew, but looking forward to it both from the perspective of a learning and thinking about it as an educator.
Confession time; I found the Coursera website and was like a kid in a candy shop (lolly store to be more Australian). I've signed up to a slew of courses and am looking forward to doing things that really interest me and cost me nothing! Will I learn from it? No doubt because a) I'm motivated and b) I'll put in the extra time when I can, either at the time or afterwards. Hoping not bitten off more than I can chew, but looking forward to it both from the perspective of a learning and thinking about it as an educator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)