What\u27s old is new again, and what\u27s the value of open

This is the editor\u27s note for this special issue of Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, where the editor discusses Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), as well as the value of openness in education

Library Portal 2.0: The Social Research Management System

Library 2.0 (L2) has been discussed in depth in library circles in recent years. This article looks at L2 initiatives and technology implementation with regard to L2 and proposes a reboot, repositioning the library portal as a Social Research Management System (SRMS). This SRMS adheres to the L2 principles of purposeful, user-driven, library services. The SRMS is envisioned as the center of academic research and activity at universities, not as a peripheral tool. Creating a new generation library portal (the SRMS) is a group endeavor, thus by utilizing both on-campus and peer resources, the realization of the faceted, modularized, SRMS can come to fruition

Foreword

This first publication of Current Issues in Emerging eLearning (CIEE) opens and closes with research studies on eLearning practice. The studies frame three theoretical discussions regarding the judicious adoption of eLearning technologies and one extended narrative regarding the various factors behind innovative best practices

Down the Rabbit Hole: An initial typology of issues around the development of MOOCs

MOOCs have experienced an unprecedented explosion of publicity. This publicity indicates both optimism that they may be the panacea for whatever ails higher education, as well as caution and trepidation that this may in-fact be some sort of new fad in higher education. In this wave of optimism, and subsequent wave of pessimism, we believe that there is something good to examine about MOOCs and that they do hold potential for certain educational arenas. That said, we don’t want to blindly dive into the MOOC optimism camp. We have critically examined the literature, from both academic peer-reviewed and academic press lenses, from 2011 to early 2014 so as to discover and discuss the main areas of challenges and issues with MOOCs. These challenges span the spectrum from pre-offering to post-conclusion of a MOOC. Our aim was to provide an initial typology of issues around MOOCs design and implementation so that we can keep them in mind as MOOCs are designed and offered, and we can begin to address some of the issues

Rethinking lurking

No abstract available

What is it like to learn and participate in rhizomatic MOOCs? a collaborative autoethnography of #RHIZO14

In January 2014, we participated in a connectivist-style massive open online course (cMOOC) called "Rhizomatic Learning – The community is the curriculum" (#rhizo14). In rhizomatic learning, teacher and student roles are radically restructured. Course content and value come mostly from students; the teacher, at most, is a curator who provides a starting point and guidance and sometimes participates as a learner. Early on, we felt that we were in a unique learning experience that we wanted to capture in writing. Explaining #rhizo14 to others without the benefit of traditional processes, practices, roles, or structures, however, presented a challenge. We invited participants to contribute narratives to a collaborative autoethnography (CAE), which comprises an assortment of collaborative Google Docs, blog posts by individuals, and comments on those documents and posts. This strategy afforded insight into what many participants found to be a most engaging course and what for some was a transformative experience. In discussing the findings from the CAE, our intent is to benefit others interested in rhizomatic learning spaces such as cMOOCs. This authoethnography specifically addresses gaps both in the understanding of the learner experience in cMOOCs and in the nature of rhizomatic learning

Rethinking lurking

No abstract available

Community tracking in a cMOOC and nomadic learner behavior identification on a connectivist rhizomatic learning network

This article contributes to the literature on connectivism, connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) and rhizomatic learning by examining participant interactions, community formation and nomadic learner behavior in a particular cMOOC, #rhizo15, facilitated for 6 weeks by Dave Cormier. It further focuses on what we can learn by observing Twitter interactions particularly. As an explanatory mixed research design, Social Network Analysis and content analysis were employed for the purposes of the research. SNA is used at the macro, meso and micro levels, and content analysis of one week of the MOOC was conducted using the Community of Inquiry framework. The macro level analysis demonstrates that communities in a rhizomatic connectivist networks have chaotic relationships with other communities in different dimensions (clarified by use of hashtags of concurrent, past and future events). A key finding at the meso level was that as #rhizo15 progressed and number of active participants decreased, interaction increased in overall network. The micro level analysis further reveals that, though completely online, the nature of open online ecosystems are very convenient to facilitate the formation of community. The content analysis of week 3 tweets demonstrated that cognitive presence was the most frequently observed, while teaching presence (teaching behaviors of both facilitator and participants) was the lowest. This research recognizes the limitations of looking only at Twitter when #rhizo15 conversations occurred over multiple platforms frequented by overlapping but not identical groups of people. However, it provides a valuable partial perspective at the macro meso and micro levels that contribute to our understanding of community-building in cMOOCs

Understanding lurkers in online learning communities

In an open online learning community there are different types of learners. Hill (2013) identified four: Lurkers: Enroll, just observe/sample a few items at most. Drop-Ins: Become partially/fully active participants for a select topic within the course, do not attempt to complete the entire course. Passive Participants: View course as content to consume, expect to be taught. Active Participants: Fully participate. Though other learner types are known, lurkers are more of a mystery in the literature since they are generally invisible in contrast to other learner types. We propose the following research questions: Why do people lurk in online communities? Is it a lack of confidence, competence or something else? Is there one main reason for lurking, or a variety of different reasons? What shifts a lurker into becoming an active member? Our participation in open online courses over recent years has prompted each of us to think about these issues. Until recently there had not been much research into looking at the different motivations of these silent participants – who can often form the majority of members of such communities (Sun 2014) and our research aims to address that gap by adding to the positive literature about lurkers. This presentation summarises the results of our ongoing research about lurker motivations in one open online course, where Twitter was one of the main platforms for learner participation (#CLMooc). Much of the literature about lurkers focuses on what they do not do. In our research we focus instead on what they actually do and argue that, contrary to popular belief, lurking can be a positive action that empowers independent learners. We begin by sharing our social network analysis (SNA) of #CLMooc tweets and explain how we used this to identify and contact potential lurkers. We then discuss the findings from our interviews with our lurkers explaining how we use these to refine models in the current literature. Some lurkers believe that they benefit as much from lurking as they would do by actively participating (Sun, 2014). Although this might conflict with social constructivist principles, there is evidence from research into peer review (e.g. David Nicol’s REAP and PEER projects) that suggests learners can learn more from seeing how their peers would approach questions than from answering questions themselves, and we will ask whether online lurking has the same positive effect and is actually vicarious learning. We conclude our presentation by suggesting that online lurking be understood not as freeloading, but as a cognitive apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger 1991), and asking how lurkers can make the transition to become active members of a community. We consider possible strategies for motivating participation from quieter members and invite an audience discussion about strategies for encouraging active learning

Writing the unreadable untext: a collaborative autoethnography of #rhizo14

No abstract available