• Ryan became a registered member 1 month, 1 week ago

  • ewewep became a registered member 3 months, 3 weeks ago

  • udaxik became a registered member 3 months, 3 weeks ago

  • ofyfezij became a registered member 4 months ago

  • As I reflect back on #OpenEdMOOC, an introduction course on open education, I am reminded how essential transparency is to my own learning experiences. This week I am attending the 44th International MEXTESOL […]

  • To continue a discussion from last month’s Transparent Educative Experiences (#OpenEdMOOC), I wanted to tease out a few more ideas related to OERs and how OERs and pedagogy differ from a more systematic approach n […]

  • Pre-teaching as a “thing”
    After having read The Dangers of Pre-Teaching I feel there is more danger in just using the term pre-teaching the way it is commonly used. The word pre-teaching currently does not see […]

  • In week 4 of Introduction to Open Education, the objectives are as follow:

    Evaluate models of content creation and settings in which each is preferable
    Explore the process of finding, assessing, and […]

  • For week 3 of an Introduction to Open Education – #OpenEdMOOC, I decided to extend an invitation to my colleagues at the Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes to consider open educational resources (OERs) and to […]

  • Since today is the National Day on Writing (#WhyIWrite), founded by The National Council of Teachers of English, I thought I’d share why I write.

    The reason I write is to have the opportunity to think deeply […]

  • For week 3 of An Introduction to Open Education, I read, My Personalized Learning Experience (Week Three), after being prompted to do so from a recent Twitter exchange:





    Personalized Lea […]

    • Jenny, thanks for linking to Downes’s post on the differences between personal and personalized learning. I had read this some time ago, but it was good to have another look.

  • Uploading open courseware this week to website…

  • Below, I address copyright, public domain, and creative commons by discussing the following points, thinking mainly within the context of formal education:

    Effectively argue why protection of “intellectual p […]

  • Whenever I begin a MOOC, it usually takes a few days to find flow – with #OpenEdMOOC, I’m getting there.  A bit of context, I am taking the course for credit (edX), but only enter to make sure I’m meeting course […]


    Openness in education matters because it reveals how actors within a group or network interact with each other. Instead of thinking philosophically about what the term means, defining openness within a […]

  • This month I had a chat with first-semester, English language teacher trainers about e-portfolios…

  • Jenny Connected asks,
    What are your thoughts on what appears to be a course about cMOOC principles being offered as an xMOOC?
    I will discuss my thoughts by addressing a few comments made by Jenny Connected…
    I […]

    • Thanks Jenny for your response and insight. Final comments…

      1) I guess sometimes I enjoy answering my own question, especially when responding to a response… 🙂

      2) Downes (2009) lists autonomy, diversity, openness, and interactivity/connectedness in a blog post, referring to these four dynamics as being part of a connectivist community (http://halfanhour.blogspot.mx/2009/02/connectivist-dynamics-in-communities.html). You seem to agree, adding that MOOCs are a “testing ground” for this type of theory (I.e., connectivism) (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1143/2086).

      Here is my point. There is too much overlap in terms of “autonomy” “diversity”, “openness”, and “interactivity/connectedness” to separate them into distinguishing principles that together set out to describe any one learning theory. For instance, diversity can easily be subsumed into openness and connectedness. We cannot discuss connectedness unless we tease out direction and types of interactions that flow between certain connections, which for me, cover autonomy and other related concepts like prestige, power, cliques, etc… which also relate to interactivity, etc.

      But, just because I am not prepared at this time to recognize any particular set of principles that make up a theory called connectivism, does not mean that I do not realize the importance of these four concepts along with a host of others well worth discussing, researching, etc. You make a great point when you conclude that ” learners may vary greatly in their desire for an interpretation of connectivity, autonomy, openness, and diversity” (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1143/2086). I totally agree, and feel this is precisely why describing any one type of theory with solely these four particular concepts is premature (although I will continue to keep researching this idea). I find it even a greater stretch to jump from these “four principles” to describe not just any MOOC, but specifically, a cMOOC. If anyone can share peer-review, empirical studies on the topic that are absent of references from blog posts, I am all ears! I admit I have not done an extensive review of the literature on this specific topic.

      I know that with my students, some feel uneasy about making their learning (and teaching) transparent (open) because they feel they will reveal mistakes in their arguments or weaknesses in their communicative skills perhaps. But I try to lead by example and show them that the true hindrance to continual professional learning is to disengage or to work in isolation. In our current exchange, I totally expect others to disagree with me and (hopefully) will receive further ideas from others as I continue to think about and discuss these topics via public discourse. You state, Jenny, that you had not thought much about why you feel uneasy about open education, and I am still interested in your perspective once you have given it a bit more thought. I find the topic of engagement and openness intriguing.

      3) My final comment is that openness for me is engaging with others and with content in a way that is completely flexible. If assessment criteria are established beforehand (e.g., credit-seeking MOOC learners) then engagement tends to become less open. However, this does not necessarily mean one extreme is inherently better than the other…

      You say that course design influences assessment, but am not sure what you mean by “course design”. In my view, assessment planning is based on predetermined course (and/or individual) learning objectives but should precede instruction (planning and implementation). Popham (2008) in Classroom Assessment refers to this as “assessment-influenced instruction”, Wiggins & McTighe (2005) in Understanding by Design refer to this as “backward design”. Even when cMOOC participants are not receiving certification or a badge, they recognize that “assessment” or “evaluation” comes in the form of an exchange based on critical thought and self-actualization.

    • Thanks for sharing Jupidu. I would enjoy reading your study.

  • Yesterday, I learned about the MOOC, Introduction to Open Education course, per Jenny Connected (via Twitter) – #OpenEdMOOC. With most MOOCs that I have taken part in, I am more interested in what the pa […]

  • Benjamin Stewart became a registered member 8 months, 1 week ago

  • I read over Couros's (July 13, 2017) Looking Beyond the Score and I believe I agree with his overall thesis, but admit I would frame it in a slightly more nuanced way.  I identify several potential problems […]

  • Load More