Well, MOOCMOOC is over and Brutus is rejoicing. A new semester is on the horizon, too. I’ve spent the last few days in meetings, at welcome events, and (re)connecting with colleagues. And, amidst these meetings, social events, and the excitement/energy for a new (school) year, was last night’s MOOCMOOC Google Hangout. The hangout fit nicely with the energy and the theme of (re)connecting, but it also symbolized the end to a crazy week. It was bittersweet.
If you’ve read the blog this week, you know that, for me, MOOCMOOC was mostly a time of learning and reflection. It was also a time of networking. I feel like my Storify provides a nice overview of the week, but it fails to offer much of a ‘final’ reflection. Pete Rorabaugh, one of our learning leaders, provided a nice prompt for some final thoughts in a tweet on Thursday night:
How to counter this claim: you
#moocmooc‘ers just got chummy and used a bunch of dig. tools. Did you do anything but exp. w new methods?
— Pete Rorabaugh (@allistelling) August 17, 2012
My first thought, is why do we need to counter this claim? I don’t remember who told me this, I think it was one of my undergraduate advisors, but every good class (at least in history) is based on a thesis statement and argument. Us historians readily admit that there is no ‘truth.’ Everyone has multiple perspectives. And so when you are designing a class, a lecture, an assignment, you’re really taking a position. For example, if I were teaching a class on Sports in American History, I might take the position that sports reflect and offer insights into American life/history. Sure, this is a pretty easy to position for most of us to buy, but its not a cold hard fact. There are many situations where sports does not reflect American life/history.
So with this idea of each class taking a position and having a thesis statement, Pete’s tweet becomes more interesting. In some ways, it seems to be revealing his uncertainty about if the class accomplished what “some” thought it would. This suggests that he, perhaps, felt unsuccessful in keeping the focus on MOOCs and online education. Now I don’t want to read too much into the question or put words in Pete’s mouth, but you get the feeling from this question that he wanted us to ponder if we really missed the whole point of the class (MOOCs) and focused on other things, such as pedagogy and digital tools. Was the class really about MOOCs?
My answer, as I stated above, is I don’t really think it matters, at least not to the students. I do, however, think asking the question is important. It’s like when you write a paper, you have a thesis and sources materials, an outline and plan, but then you get to the end. After you read the paper, you think “did I really argue that?” The information and the tools were there to argue different things, but perhaps your interpretation or perspective shifted. You were all set to argue that Ronald Reagan was the worst President ever, but then you kept hedging yourself (he wasn’t impeached like Andrew Johnson, he capitalized on the Silent Majority, he ended the Cold War), until you realize he actually did some OK stuff and motivated an entire new generation of people (for good or for ill). I feel like MOOCMOOC was like that, for me and probably for Pete, and others.
We started out wanting to talk about MOOCs, but from the get go the conversation was pedagogical. We engaged (lightly) in the debate about cMOOCs and xMOOCs during our first activity. From there, we all tended to embrace a lot of the connectivist stuff. This included collaboration, technology, digital tools, and further engaged thoughts on assessment and teacher-centered versus student-centered instruction. Some might say the MOOC was the hook. By starting out with the MOOC debate those of us for and against them were drawn in. Once we were in we became active and were gently prodded towards experimentation and reflection about what MOOCs (and online education in general). Although for the most part we avoided criticizing online teaching, we did admit that it is flawed and looked for ways to improve it. Because most of us do not teach online, however, it then became as much about improving online courses and MOOCs as our own on-the-ground courses. The hybrid pedagogy piece was fully embraced. Certainly some of this was because of the views/experiences of our “leaders” and the readings/resources they chose to provide.
In the end, MOOCMOOC took a stance and a position. It used MOOCs and technology as a hook, but mostly talked about the lessons and skills that we can learn from MOOCs as well as those we can use to improve them (and our own classes). This was MOOCMOOC’s thesis statement and conclusion, many of us bought it. I did.
It taught me a lot about teaching and technology. I was given the opportunity (and support) to design my own course. I networked with lots of people who seem generally interested in helping me as I look to develop my digital skills and apply them to my own discipline, both in research and teaching. The focus on networking an relationships was really forged throughout the week in our activities, and isa large part why I think most people bought the MOOCMOOC argument. We made connections, shared insights, and reinforced the ideas through our own experiences and knowledge.
And now, MOOCMOOC is over. We’re all free, but with school and other commitments racheting up, we don’t have much time. There has been lots of talk about what’s next. Will there be a post-MOOCMOOC hashtag to continue the conversation on Twitter? In the Google Hangout, Jesse Stommel mentioned the initial idea was to kill off (deactivate) the MOOCMOOC account. If that’s the case, I suggest we hearken the words of Mick Jagger; “Let’s do some living after we die.” I know I hope to stay in touch and continue to learn from, and with, as many of you as I can, because “You know I can’t let you slide through my hands, Wild horses, couldn’t drag me away.”