Our team has chosen to explore Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) and will be looking at The Science of Wellbeing (TSW), a free course offered by Yale through Coursera. My previous experience with MOOCs came when I worked for The City of Calgary’s IT Education department. Our department was responsible for distributing free licenses for Lynda.com (now called LinkedIn Learning) to City employees, and while I did not complete any courses, I spent time perusing course offerings to make suggestions on ones that would be of interest to City employees. While this experience allowed me to engage with a MOOC, at the time I did not know that Lynda.com was a MOOC – I was unfamiliar with the term and did not differentiate Lynda.com from YouTube. Interestingly, despite being unaware of what a MOOC was at the time, I now realize that this experience helped shape the issue I have chosen to examine for this assignment: MOOCs and corporate training.

According to Dodson, Kitburi and Berge (2015), while MOOCs have primarily been associated with higher education, MOOC providers are increasingly pursuing possibilities in corporate training. The authors further suggest that “since 2013, greater consideration has focused on how MOOCs may play a role in the corporate world” (p. 15). The increase in popularity of MOOCs in corporate training even led to the year 2014 being considered the “Year of the Corporate MOOC”, just two years after 2012 was dubbed “The Year of the MOOC” as referenced in our team blog post.

One of the benefits of using MOOCs for corporate training is that existing MOOCs can be leveraged. Dodson, Kitburi and Berge (2015) point out that current MOOCs offer courses with high-quality content that have been developed in partnership with prominent institutions. Similarly, Silak-Riesinger (2017) suggests that implementing existing MOOCs in corporate settings can lead to employees engaging with people from around the world, leading employees to develop more culturally-diverse perspectives. Furthermore, leveraging existing MOOCs can result in cost savings. Based on Josh Bersin’s 2013 Corporate Learning Factbook, Silak-Riesinger states “that training in basic management, office productivity, math, Excel and further core business skills generally cost a company about 100 to 500 dollars per employee and per year” (p. 20-21). Using existing MOOCs would provide a low cost, or even no cost, alternative to other corporate learning options.

To date, my interactions with TSW seem to align with these benefits since the course is offered by Yale, a prestigious institution, and delivered by a top instructor as per Coursera’s ratings. Additionally, the course is free, meaning a potential company would save money by having their employees take this course or a similar one that meets their company needs.

I look forward to continuing my research on MOOCs in corporate training and developing my critical inquiry on whether MOOCs in corporate training can disrupt MOOCs in higher education. I invite my fellow classmates to comment on their experiences with MOOCs in corporate training and how their employer would benefit from using MOOCs.

References

Dodson, M. N., Kitburi, K., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Possibilities for moocs in corporate training and development. Performance Improvement, 54(10), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21532

Sillak-Riesinger, B. (2017). The potential of massive open online courses in the context of corporate training and development (Ser. Bestmasters). Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16649-6

One talking point of George Velatsianos’s podcast that resonated with me was the idea that we shouldn’t always focus on technology. It reminded me of a situation I faced in a previous job; a new software application was being implemented that would house our department’s documentation and help automate our processes. While the application was very promising, I felt that those in charge of its implementation were too focused on the end result (i.e., how the application would work) as opposed to what was required to reach the end result. Subsequently, other work started to be ignored in favor of it being put into the new application, yet the implementation process dragged on for over a year, leaving our team further behind that when we started. At one point I tried to convince my colleagues that we were focused on the wrong issue and simply said “It’s just a tool”, but this was also ignored. If this were to happen in an educational setting, it’s possible that students could be deprived of a great educational experience in favor of a fancy technology, which I think everyone would agree, beats the purpose of implementing technology. However, much like George said that there are many positives and opportunities of being present online, this is also true of technology in education, so I remain optimistic that educational researchers have the best interests of students in mind when they propose such technologies.

As some of you know, I have already completed LRNT 523, and assuming this year’s class will be assigned the same readings, you will be reading Martin Weller’s 25 Years of EdTech. It outlines technologies that have been introduced over the past 25 years, one technology per year. One of the interesting themes that I gleaned from this book was that some technologies were not readily accepted when they were first introduced. Connecting this with the idea that we shouldn’t always focus on technology, I wonder why then some technologies are accepted and some are not. As well, for those technologies that aren’t accepted, I wonder if it’s because they are addressing the wrong issue, and as George suggested, instead need to be addressed through a policy or process change, or whether it’s due to it being a weak technology?

Another talking point of the podcast that resonated with me was the advice George gave about researching what interests you. This is very timely as I now have to focus on what my topic will be for my applied research project or digital learning research consulting project. I can’t say I know the answer to that question just yet, so likely I will have to do further research to see what’s out there and hopefully I can find a topic that I am both interested in and motivated to learn. 

References

Veletsianos, G. (2021, August 11). Personal interview [Personal interview].

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

According to Lipowski (2008), while formulating a good research question is paramount in research, there is little guidance on how to do so, however, it is a skill that can be cultivated through colleagues and mentors. It is proposed that researchers follow these three steps to develop a good research question:

1. Ask interesting questions

Researchers should consider their personal experiences when formulating a research question by considering what is currently missing or problematic in their field of study. Emotional and reason should also be considered as it is suggested that “good questions arise from both intellectual and visceral responses to the…environment” (p. 1667).  New researchers can also rely on their inexperience in their field of study when contemplating a research question. Overall, it is important to remember that “interesting research questions always challenge assumptions, and the presence of assumptions confirms that a study poses a sound research question” (p. 1669).

2. Select the best question for research

While inquisitive minds can formulate many interesting questions, it is suggested that researchers should also consider formulating a research question from the analysis of evidence and the goal of their project, and to avoid questions that are too broad. Overall, it is important to remember that “a research question is a logical statement that progresses from what is known or believed to be true to that which is unknown and requires validation” (p. 1668). 

3. Turn the research question into a testable question

Researchers should consider formulating a research question based on a measurable hypothesis. It is suggested that hypotheses predict the answers to research questions, and thus, “hypotheses are statements, that, if true, would explain the researchers’ observations” (p. 1669). Overall, it is important to remember that “research should not be embarked on with the idea that the empirical evidence will prove truth”, but rather “research can…demonstrate the utility of an idea within a specific context” (p. 1670).

References

Lipowski, E. E. (2008). Developing great research questions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy : American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(17), 1667-1670. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=b1903395-d1c6-4880-a954-c1b3f6ad374a%40sessionmgr103

My visual network map consists of 4 main areas: Facebook (51 connections), Linkedin (3 connections), Discord – MALAT Program 2020 – 2022 (16 connections), and Slack – MALAT Program 2021- 2023 (26 connections). I currently only have one connection that that connects to two different areas, but I imagine this will change as I grow my Linkedin network. 

Here is the PDF of my visual network map since the image below is a bit small. 

As I mentioned in my visitor-resident map, I have purposely made my digital presence small, so being asked to cultivate it further isn’t a simple task. I recently listened to an interview with Noel Gallagher, and when asked about the reach and affect of his music, he said “once a song is out there, it doesn’t belong to you anymore” (RadioX, 2021, 06:17). This is the best way I can describe my hesitancy in cultivating a digital identity and digital presence (DIDP) – once it’s out there, it doesn’t belong to me anymore. I also take to heart the words of Schryver (2013) in “that much of what [I] post will last forever, and can be seen by anyone” (para. 16).

DIDP Goal

Jenkins (2013) offers a compelling point that “many people on YouTube are producing media because there’s something vitally they want to share” (02:18). I propose that this can also apply to a person’s DIDP. Right now, I don’t really know what I want to vitally share; I am still relatively new and getting to know the field of learning and technology and haven’t found my niche. So, while I may not be in a position to share, I am in the position to learn, so the overall goal of my DIDP is to immerse myself in the field of learning and technology to find areas of interest and connect with individuals who can share their experiences with me.

DIDP Strategies and Approaches

My first approach is to grow my Linkedin network as I currently only have 3 connections. I’m typically a quality over quantity type of person, so I’m not going to designate a specific number of connections, but rather I plan to connect with those that I can learn from and potentially work and collaborate with.

My second approach is to start a digital portfolio to showcase my work to potential employers. During my break after LRNT 522, I am considering taking the IDOL courses Academy as it will give me the opportunity to start building a portfolio and light the fire under my feet to ensure it gets done. I can then supplement this portfolio with work from the MALAT program when I return next spring.    

Measuring Success

Measuring the success of these approaches will mainly stem from my own satisfaction that I was able to accomplish them. While that may sound like a cop-out, I don’t want to rely on the number of connections I make or the number of visits to my portfolio to measure their success. Since I am breaking away from my comfort zone, I don’t want the added pressure of not achieving a numbers goal – I want my DIDP’s success to be based on its authenticity, and as said by Watters (2015), its ability “to track [my] growth and demonstrate [my] new learning” (para. 19) over the course of this program and my career.

References

Jenkins, H. (2013, May 7). Henry Jenkins on Participatory Culture (Big Thinkers Series) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gPm-c1wRsQ&

Radio X. (2021, April 29). Noel Gallagher reflects on being attached on stage [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHvQsWwDYEk

Schryver, K. (2013, February 5). Who Are You Online? Considering Issues of Web Identity. The New York Times blogs. https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/guest-post-who-are-you-online-considering-issues-of-web-identity/

Watters, A. (2015, July 15). The Web We Need To Give Students. Bright. https://brightthemag.com/the-web-we-need-to-give-students-311d97713713#.a2rmav7fp

Dave Cormier (2018) proposes an interesting addendum to Dave White’s Visitor-Resident typology by considering where professional practice fits within the mapping activity. With regards to my own visitor-resident typology map, considering professional practice does not change where my current entries fall, but rather causes more to be added (e.g., printer, digital camera, etc.). Unexpectedly, Cormier’s post did cause me to reflect on digital practices and “how digital a particular practice really is” (para. 10).

Cormier’s question on whether email is a digital practice led me to liken this to the nuances that must be considered when defining digital learning. Recently, I interviewed a former colleague for an assignment in LRNT 525. The topic was about leadership and change management but framed in a digital learning context. When I was asked to define digital learning, despite being 3 courses into the MALAT program, I wasn’t sure exactly how to define it.

Sousa and Rocha (2019) concede that digital learning is complex, and define it using Kyndt et al’s definition “as an unplanned and implicit process with unpredictable results using several types of technological devices like smartphones, tablets, computers, and others” (p. 328) – so does this mean that MALAT synchronous sessions aren’t digital learning? On the other hand, Warschauer (2007) acknowledges that digital learning “relates to how students learn” (p. 44) – so does this mean that students in a classroom using a digital practice (e.g., computer) are solely in a digital learning environment?

I hope as I progress through this program I will be able to find the answers to these questions.

References

Cormier, D. (2018, March 31). Digital Practices Mapping – Intro activity for digital literacies course [web log]. http://davecormier.com/edblog/2018/03/31/digital-practices-mapping-intro-activity-for-digital-literacies-course/

Sousa Maria José, & Rocha Álvaro. (2019). Digital learning: developing skills for digital transformation of organizations. Future Generation Computer Systems, 91, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.08.048

Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(3), 219–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0022-0

The following illustrates my use of digital technologies according to White’s (2013) resident-visitor typology. Like others in this cohort, I have made my digital presence relatively small and have purposely made it that way. I recently searched my name on Google – while my Linkedin profile came up, there is another Alison Kendrick with a much larger digital presence that monopolizes the results (and that’s fine with me).

Most of the technologies I’ve categorized as being a resident of are used as part of the MALAT program. While I use those that I’ve listed as personal (Facebook, Instagram) almost daily, I’m only an observer, meaning I have Facebook to see family and friends posts, but I rarely post anything. Similarly with Instagram, I use it to follow bands, professional tennis players and tournaments, and dogs I’ve never met but think are really cute. 

Since I am currently job searching, I have included Indeed and Eluta (job search engines) and Novoresume (a resume builder) under Institutional, as well as Zoom and other video conferencing applications since I use them to conduct most of my interviews. I assume in my next position, these applications would likely remain under Institutional as long as COVID-19 continues to force people to work from home.

References

White, D. (2013, September 13). Just the Mapping [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSK1Iw1XtwQ

This past week I participated in the 2021 MALAT Virtual Symposium. The symposium is made up of a series of guest speakers, ranging from students, faculty, and professionals, and their experiences with education and technology. A recurring theme in this years’ (and past years) symposium was open and its role in education.

Starting with Amanda Coolidge’s (2021) talk on Open Education, which she described as “being about sharing, collaboration, and breaking down barriers of accessing education and knowledge” (08:01-08:08), I was intrigued to learn that the term “open” was as broad as it is, and includes topics such as open textbooks, open pedagogy, open research, etc., which all culminate under the umbrella term of open practice. I particularly enjoyed the discussion on access and affordability issues and how they can be addressed through open practice. Dave Cormier (2017) furthered the discussion on open in his talk, making the distinction between free and freedom, which I thought was important as it hadn’t occurred to me that free, albeit appealing, may not equal freedom. I also liked how he spoke to the value of both “open as in content and open as in learning” (17:46) because I believe it takes both to be a successful learner. Cormier also used a great metaphor with rhizomes and its implications on open, and learning in general, that will undoubtedly stick with me.

As Coolidge (2021) discussed the work of BCcampus with open education, specifically with open textbooks, I disagreed with her position that the quality of open textbooks “isn’t so much about the course material, its about the way in which you teach it” (22:31). My initial disagreement stemmed from the idea that its possible to have a very charismatic teacher teaching material that isn’t accurate (e.g., teaching students that Germany won World War II). As I watched Elizabeth Childs and Loni Davis’s (2021) talk, I further felt Coolidge’s position was weak due to Child’s comments on how journal articles undergo a rigorous review process before being published. I found myself asking why if journal articles require such scrutiny, why don’t open textbooks? While I recognize there is likely a lengthier explanation about the review process for open textbooks, and Weller (2020) states that “the Open Education Group at Brigham Young University…[has] established an evidence base demonstrating that open textbooks were of high quality and had a positive impact on students” (p. 138-139), I felt that a stronger stance from Coolidge was needed. Despite this disagreement, I’d like to learn more about open textbooks and their review and publishing processes. Weller (2020) states that “…the quality of the physical book is an important aspect for both educators and students. Books are artifacts at which people tend to have an emotional connection” (p. 139), so I’d be curious to learn more on how this is achieved with respect to open textbooks.

While Cindy Harris did not speak specifically about an open topic, her willingness to be open about her life and career journey resonated with me. I hope to connect with her for advice on the instructional design and how to break into the field. As well, the presentations from current MALAT students, from Mark Regan’s work with air traffic controllers and simulator technologies to Sandra Kuiper’s research on Free Learning as an Open Educational Resource Repository, helped shed light on the wide range of research options, which is encouraging as I prepare to choose my exit pathway.

References

Childs, E., & Davis, L., (2021, April 14). Critical Reading and Writing at the Graduate Level. [Webinar]. Royal Roads University .

Coolidge, A. (2021, April 12). Open Education: what it is; what it does and its amazing impact! [Webinar]. Royal Roads University .

Cormier, D. (2017, April 18). Intentional messiness of online communities. [Webinar]. Royal Roads University . https://malat-coursesite.royalroads.ca/lrnt521/dave-cormier-virtual-symposium-presentation/

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120290-25-years-of-ed-tech/