Ethnography, Lifestream, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

SOCIALITY IN MOOCs

Leave a comment

I offer some initial, tentative observations on MOOCs. These observations have to do with what might be described as the ‘sociality’ of the MOOC learning environment. These observations are really tangential to my primary micro-ethnographic research question, but I thought they were interesting each to blog about with EDC course peers, and they may ultimately inform my final ethnographic findings. I am now at about the midpoint of my chosen MOOC – Coursera Scandinavian Film & TV Culture. One observation is that there was a flurry of enthusiasm and posting activity early in the course, but it was mostly focused on self-introductions. The “Getting to Know You” Thread is by far the forum with the most posts with: 148 posts, 1748 views. The course organizers encouraged video introductions and I am still reviewing these selectively to assess how the learner’s approached it. But, my initial impression is that many MOOC learners may be just as interested in ‘belonging’ to a kindred ‘community’ of people with similar interests as they are in learning about the course content. The posts, comments, and threads related to the course content continue now in week 3, but the volume is significantly less than the early days of the course. The second most postings were responses to an early thread “What is your favorite Scandinavian Film or TV Series”? which has 126 posts, 719 views. This is a generic question which many learners answered early during the first week of the course, and is still receiving occasional new posts. Subsequent discussion question have received much less attention with generally fewer than about a dozen or so learners engaging in more substantive exchanges based on the course content.

A second example of ‘sociality’ in my subject MOOC is that one learner posts concerned wishes for the “peace, safety and continued free speech” to her new Danish friends and colleagues in light of the shootings in Copenhagen this past week. While I certainly share these sentiments for Danish people, it impressed me that the discussion was being used in this case more for as ‘bulletin board’ or ‘chat’ function, rather than focusing on the academic content of the course. Again, I am not judging or critiquing that usage, just observing that the MOOC may serve other ‘sociality’ purposes than learning about the course material.
Emerging patterns in MOOCs
Emerging patterns in MOOCs

Ethnography, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

Week 5 – Deep in the MOOC of Things

Leave a comment

0.2-300x295

It is end of Week 2 of the Scandinavian Film and TV (ScanFilmTV) Culture that I have chosen for conducting the micro-ethnographic study. I have spent considerable time this past week studying about the Week 2b ScanFilmTV topic on Dogme 95 hoping that there would be enough data to study, but that has not proven to be the case. I immersed myself in researching the topic, spent time watching two Lars Von Trier films, Dogville and Antichrist, and doing a few prescribed readings, so that I could converse intelligently with other participants in the MOOC. I posted five comments in the discussion forum in respond to the Question: “What, if anything, has Dogma 95 contributed to contemporary cinema in terms of both style, content or other matters?.” Halfway through the week, I realized that I was experiencing a ‘role conflict’ between my role as a MOOC participant and that of an ethnographer. I found that I was getting so much into the subject matter, as a participant, of studying the Dogme 95 film movement and the influence of Lars von Trier as the main provocateur that I lost sight that was not the primary aim of my ethnographic research. Rather, my objective was to observe the participants in the MOOC.

I posted a few related Tweets below in this Lifestream blog throughout the week as I was studying more about Kozinet’s influence on this field, of what has been called “netnography.” Some of the Netnography video materials that I posted below were particularly helpful in enabling me to re-orient on the task of ethnographic observation of the ScanFilmTV MOOC. A couple EDC peers seemed to appreciate these resources. At this juncture, based upon my initial assessment of the data available, I am inclined to investigate the ‘forum reputations’ of the ‘top forum posters’ in this specific MOOC, as the focus for the micro-ethnography. This approach is quite different from my point of departure last week when I was very focused on the specific topic of Dogme 95 and Lars von Trier. It is not that I am a major fan of von Trier, but I projected that this controversial director would generate consideration discussion on his work and influence.

I continue to have ethical concerns about how to manage this project. I have not explicitly requested permission to observe this MOOC from the organizers because on the one hand, I thought that there might be some resistance to allowing this type of research, and on the other hand, I thought that I could manage to find a way to handle the data considerately and not intentionally violate the privacy or anonymity of the other participants. The further that I get into the study, could more readily understand the Challenges to Research in MOOCs (Fournier,H. Kup,R. & Durand,G. 2014) what the ethical implications might be (Marshall, S., 2014). Also, my shift in the direction of the research, from participation to observation, has prompted to re-think the packaging and delivery of the research; noting Alan Levine’s warning that it (the research) is not about the tools, from his 50 Web 2.0 Ways to Tell a Story website.

Ethics, Ethnography, Lifestream, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

Permission to Use Materials – Coursera

Leave a comment

Coursera Terms of Service:

All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws. In consideration for your agreement to the terms and conditions contained here, Coursera grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to access and use the Sites. You may download material from the Sites only for your own personal, non-commercial use. You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you.

Uncategorized

TALKING POINTS FOR KOZINETS’ UNDERSTANDING CULTURE ONLINE

2 Comments

EDC Friends, I offer these talking points for possible discussion during next Google Hangout. Quotes refer to Kozinet’s reading – Understanding Online Culture (2010) – with some attributions to his sources.

1) “Technology does not determine culture, but rather they are co-determining, co-constructive forces.”(p.22)
2) Early stream of research posited a ‘status equalization effect,’ a flattening of hierarchies, equalized social status, less rule following, no apparent leadership.(p.23)
3) Walther (1997) suggested that we could understand online community behavior by referencing ‘anticipated future interaction. (p.23)
4) Wellman (2001) suggested that the ‘networked individualism’ in which “online communities’ lack of formal institutional structure means that communications will depend on the quality of the social ties that the individual forms with the group.” (p.24)
5) Forrester Research asserts that online communities ‘run the gamut’ from forums to web-pages to blogs to social networking sites that enable personal expression, active participation and the formation of relationships. (p.24)
6) “Netnography” – the ethnography of online groups. (p.25)
7) “Online gatherings follow many of the same basic rules as groups that gather in person” (p.25) (e.g. development of group norms, importance of group identity), however, “online communities’ unique characteristics – such as anonymity and accessibility – create unique opportunities for a distinctive style of interaction.
8) “Online tools are more likely to extend social contact than detract from it.” Howard, et al. (2000)(p.26)
9) “Online communities “can intensify exiting relationships” and “help to create and maintain new relationships.” (p.26)(Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2003)
10) “People who are interested in online communities became drawn into and acculturated by their contact with them.” (p.26) (Kozinets, 1999)
11) Research into Kozinets’ theory of development progression of participation in online communities demonstrated “that social and cultural information permeate every exchange, affecting a type of gravitational pull that causes every exchange to become coloured with emotional affiliative, and meaning-rich elements.” (p.28)
12) “The longer people are on the Internet, the more likely they are to use the Internet to engage in social-capital-building activities.”(p.29)(Kavanaugh and Patterson, 2001)
13) “If anything, Internet use appears to be bolstering real-world involvement.” (p.29)(McKenna & Seidman, 2005)
14) Four types of online membership: regulars, newbies, lurkers and bashers. (p.31)(Correll, 1995)
15) Kozinets’ four idealized member ‘types': newbies, minglers, devotees, insiders, and types of relationships: interactor, maker, lurker, networker.(p.33)
16) Kozinets’ types of online interactions: geeking, building, cruising, bonding.(p.35)
17) “Online communities even appear to be changing the nature of work and work relationships.”(p. 38)(Gossett & Kilker,2006)
18) “Online communities have a transformational effect on their participants.” (p.39)(Zelwietor, 1998)
19) “Online community participants can “serve as social agents for cultural transformation in their other various cultures and communities.”(p.39)(Olanrian, 2004)
20) “Ethnographic investigations teach us about the varieties of strategies and practices used to create a communal sense”…”and also teach about the varieties and substance of online community participation, members, participation styles and forms”.(p.40)

Education and Digital Culture 2015 Course Lifestream Blog