“What happens to serendipity in a system where all educational choices are based on recommender systems” (Enyon, 2013, 238)

I think this really echoes the points you were making about Netflix above Jeremy, and, as much as I love structured studying, I think stumbling upon ideas and concepts through education is also really important.

Rebecca Eynon (2013) The rise of Big Data: what does it mean for education,
technology, and media research?, Learning, Media and Technology, 38:3, 237-240, DOI:
10.1080/17439884.2013.771783

‘My choices, right from the beginning, were limited to recent viewing folly’

Yes, really interesting, particularly as Netflix seem to claim a somewhat more sophisticated algorithm, and also that they highlight the differences between what people say they watch, and what they actually watch (http://www.wired.com/2013/08/qq_netflix-algorithm/). Where is the scope to be surprised by something new in your recommended films? This is the crux of the you loop issue.

‘Harmless here, but what if it was a political view being reinforced? What if it was a perspective on a current affair or report on a certain issue I may not have heard about.’

Great point here. While one might argue that Hollywood films are relatively simple to categorise into genre, there is a problem here between how the algorithm might classify something, and how any one individual might interpret that area, isn’t there? So, staying with the film example,can we assume that people actually like films according to genre in all cases? Don’t people have more nuanced interpretations of films, and what they might like about them? For example, I think The Shining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_%28film%29) is probably one of my favourite films, but I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of a ‘horror’ genre. There are other things I like about the film that I’m not sure I can even articulate fully what those things are and *why* I like it – so can an algorithm really do that for me?

That relates to your point here, because there are perhaps more serious implications around the kind of knowledge we have access to through algorithms (Google Search being a prime example). So, my argument would be that when we try to model the ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ of people, it is not only done in a hugely simplistic way, but the results also feed back formative ideas about our selves that are quite powerful (Oh, so I must be a horror fan!). Rather than think about what it is we like about films, the algorithm gives us an answer. When one thinks about this in terms of politics, as you say, the implications may be pretty significant.

You also raise a really good point about the automated ‘personalisation’ of education and the loss of diversity. The assumed transparency and authenticity of the algorithm is central here again I think: if an algorithm tells you that you are a ‘visual learner’ and that you prefer mathematics-related subjects, that is a pretty powerful message to somebody who might be feeling pressured to find direction and focus in their choice of educational pathway?

I did choose to focus on smaller groups, whenever I went to Twitter to seek out posts related to the Total Leadership course I only found tweets promoting the course, I never really found any links to additional content. I think a community of 33,000 discussing themes related to the course would be a mess.

“Was it a MOOC already comprised of smaller communities?”

At the initial stages of the MOOC, through the forum, learners split off into regional study groups.

“So, is one of your outcomes here perhaps that ‘massive’ numbers aren’t really conducive to ‘community’?”

Most definitely, communities of practice and personal learner networks seem to be present in the smaller groups, I’m not too sure how a ‘massive’ group would look, just based on the sheer number of comments and dialogue one would have to sift through in order to follow a conversation or be involved in a meaningful way.

“Was the course exclusively delivered in English?”

Yes, totally delivered in English.

If so, did you find that the Spanish group felt isolated in some way, or perhaps just more comfortable to speak Spanish in their communications?

I don’t think they were isolated, many of them were executives with a great level of English. More than this they enjoyed collaborating and discussing the themes, clarifying points, and further exploring the topics. If I were to repeat the activity I would have perhaps chosen a small English speaking group and compared and contrasted the discussions/direction each group took. As I don’t have any insight to other groups I wouldn’t like to assume anything, however I think this could be down to the Spanish speaking community searching for clarification and translation into their own cultures. It was also interesting to see the different regional differences in Spanish within the group, there were Venezuelans, Argentinians, Mexicans, Chileans and Spaniards in the group, and each had different colloquial Spanish, sometimes we would discuss certain meanings about regional terms and also how they related to English.

Did you find any difficulties with your ‘insider’ role?

I did, some ethical issues popped up for me when taking screen shots of the discussion and thoughts about sharing them were most definitely present. As I became more involved with the group I felt that I may have been leading discussions in a certain way and perhaps influencing things somehow. Possibly the role of lurker would have been more rewarding in this study.

Did you disclose to the group that you were a ‘researcher’?

In the discussion forum, at the very start, I introduced myself and stated my aims and hopes for the course. This was a bit of a cop out as for anyone to fully understand my aims they would have had to gone back and read what I was trying to do.

‘Reportedly there are 33,000+ participating in the course, yet I am only involved with smaller groups’

So was that just about your choosing to focus on smaller groups, or did you find that the MOOC was actually not functioning much as a community of 33,000? Was it a MOOC already comprised of smaller communities? That seems to me quite interesting, because much of the hype around MOOCs has been the ‘massive’ enrolment numbers. So, is one of your outcomes here perhaps that ‘massive’ numbers aren’t really conducive to ‘community’?

‘I signed up to a Spanish speaking group’

The language issue here sounds interesting too. Was the course exclusively delivered in English? If so, did you find that the Spanish group felt isolated in some way, or perhaps just more comfortable to speak Spanish in their communications?

‘they pushed the course into the realm of cMOOC’

I wonder of you could say a bit more about what elements of the ‘cMOOC’ were being displayed here. the Stewart (2013) reading would be useful for that.

‘I found the course to be a mix between cMOOC and xMOOC as it pushes the student to interact with peers and self reflect, instead of simply consuming knowledge, whilst my experience in the Spanish speaking group further affirmed these beliefs.’

So, was it an intentional part of the course design that ‘pushed’ students to undertake more of these ‘cMOOC’ activities? Or was it somehow related to their preferred language – which would be very interesting indeed?

Something else to comment on here (or in other post) would be some thought on your role as ethnographer. Did you find any difficulties with your ‘insider’ role? Did you disclose to the group that you were a ‘researcher’?