#ocTEL MOOC (week 2 Webinar) Eventually, it's wise to distinguish the driver from the traveller!

This week, for the first time since the beginning of this course, I can attend the webinar. The connexion is easy and the environment is rather well designed. We have a sense of the audience (about 50 people), the moderators are active, the chat is lively and the presentation (slides and comments) is clearly displayed. May be, for a foreign learner, not perfect in English, the discourse is too fast and difficult sometimes to catch; however with the support of the slides and thanks to a well structured talk, it is possible to follow anyway.

 The topic of the webinar, presented by Helen Beetham, is to explore and consider possible responses to the question "What do we need to know about learners?".

I usually understand this question from an epistemic and cognitive perspective, but this time the angle is more focused on the learner as a user of the MOOC. This makes me realize the difference between a the user of a course and a learner. If one consider a course as a commodity, then there are a few question to ask about the user which are of a different nature than if you consider it as an instrument for learning purposes. I mean that there are two different questions: (1) what we need to know about the learner as a course user? (2) what do we need to know about the learner as a knowing subject? The commodification, if I may dare this neologism, of courses by the technology makes relevant questioning who is the learner as a user (eventually as a client as he or she may pay for the service).

Let's try a metaphor: a car is both a commodity and a means for go from one place to an other, however before travelling one must be able to drive. Hence, if you conceive a car you must know something about the driver, the question of who he or she is as a traveller is an other story... Back to learning: such a question is not that critical in a classroom because of the possibility to adapt in real time to the difficulties which may appear. In a distance learning course of a reasonable size, there is the possibility to intervene if needed and respond to needs with not a too long delay; actually there is a physical distance but the social distance is not too important. In a MOOC, the social distance may be rather critical since it is very easy to remain unnoticeable and isolated from the others. So, being autonomous, proactive and digital-something is required, and one may understand that the institutions try to ensure that this is fine before students engage in a MOOC. To some extent, ensuring that the driver has a licence is a wise idea.

Eventually, I think we have to consider seriously Roger Emery remark: "Issues I face: Concentration, Focus, Application, Dedication. In a traditional 'classroom' I am locked in a room for an hour with a facilitator and community of learners with no distractions to concentrate on the learning and subject. I've never been able to replicate that experience online" (@SolentRoger).

#ocTEL MOOC (week 2 A21) Prerequisites for attending a MOOC

The topic of the week is "Understanding learners needs", which in my opinion is better expressed by understanding the prerequisites for enrolling potentially successfully in a (Massive Open) On-line Course. Four questionnaires are suggested to get a first idea of what that could mean. Here they are:

Penn State University: Online Readiness Assessment San Diego Community College: Online Learning Readiness Assessment Illinois Online Network: Self Evaluation for Potential Online Students University of Houston: Test of Online Learning Success 

I took two, then became curious and took all...  I responded sincerely to all the questions and got from the University of Houston the advice to improve on some aspects. I was not in the worse cluster, nor the best but in the one of those who have to manage a few things to ensure a successful on-line curriculum. Penn State was OK, as well as San Diego, but the most enthousiastic was the Illinois Online Network:

Sign me up! You are a great candidate for online learning.

Were is the difference from? Indeed from the nature of the questions and the range of possibility to respond. In the case of Houston, it is possible to "strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree". So, for some questions "neither agree nor disagree" is often  the best response as long as you consider it as expressing that actually the response is: it depends. For example, for the question "I am capable of making time for my coursework", a sincere response is: it depends, as you may be willing to but for many reasons you cannot. Actually, such questionnaires may be reliable on questions dealing with accessibility to the network and to a good enough computer, and with computational skills. It is much more debatable for the assessment of dimensions of the personality or of learning skills. Just take the case of procrastination, (in many culture) people may not admit it publicly, if even they understand the word.

Let say, that alternatively a short document should advice the potential user of the kind of access to technology and of the basic skills they need in order to engage. Going ahead is than a question of responsibility on their side. If they think that they have a not a sufficient access to technology or not enough skills, then open to them the possibility to express it and ask for support. For the rest, the technology must be able to figure out what are the difficulty of the learner. To take an example, procrastination can be identified from the log and a support could be kindly and politely offered. By the way, I am late in achieving the tasks in ocTEL although I don't look at myself as a procrastinator... it just happens that this #ocTEL MOOC cannot be at the highest level of priority of my to-do list; but the technology should recognize that I keep going and maintain effort to keep in the main stream.

Although I know something on TEL and I have used several educational software, I have no experience of online learning. #ocTEL is my first experience, so I can take it and myself as a case to explore expectations and concerns. The main point is that I expected a course and I feel more engaged in a kind of speedy brainstorming on learning and technology. The technology works well and is friendly to the skills of a normal digital immigrant (not a native). The quantity of events and contribution is hugged, it is not obvious to connect and take benefit from participating in this emergent community of practice. But, I don't surrender, so see you in the next Blog post which will be on Activity 2.2 and about the webinar (which I attended on week 2).