G+ and MOOC Learning Model??

Re-posted from my G+ space on February 24, 2013 12:49 PM as record of my thought process:

I have two questions… My brain is having a hard time figuring out how dialogs manifest in G+…

For instance, look at this post (February 24, 2013 12:49 PM). It started as a post where I had shared a link from Meg Tufano and I endorsed the content of that link. The dialog, however, progressed to become a three-way conversation, but with each of us focusing on a slightly different angle.

An even BETTER example is the post by Laura Gibbs from yesterday February 23 at 2:06pm, which blossomed into a 38-comment full blown forum, where then George Station pointed out that there was another discussion of 59-comments that had grown from a post that Justin Scoggin began on February 22, and was actually a commentary / re-post from Larry Press.

Please bear with me… I have a point to make here.

I am VERY interested to examine how LEARNING actually takes place HERE in this vast terrain we call G+… it is EVIDENT that the methodology of “learning” here is quite different than what we find in “traditional” models. The “learning” that is taking place HERE in G+ involves interaction, internalization, and application – which on the surface does not seem any different from other models of teaching-and-learning. However, the SPEED, the BRANCHING (off into tangents), the SCOPE (of related topics), and the REACH (geographic location of participants involved), is definitely NOT the same as any “typical” higher ed type model.

The debate that was so vehemently argued out yesterday in the three threads (initiated by Laura Gibbs, Justin Scoggin and George Station) was AMAZING. And even MORE amazing, is that such debates (or discourses) occur DAILY and CONTINUOUSLY here in G+, and that they HAVE BEEN occurring for some years now.

The fact that OF LATE, administrators and policy makers have BEGUN TO REALIZE that cMOOC’s are able to MIRROR these types of interactions, is an interesting development. Thank you to Marc Schanu for bringing up some articles that highlight the quest for finding a good MOOC model. On that note, perhaps this phenomena should also be incorporated into professional development programs? (reference to  Doug Holton’s shared article yesterday).

Which brings me to my two questions:

(1) What is the LEARNING MODEL in this G+ space? Has anyone studied it (yet)? If anyone knows of any studies, please share.

(2) Since (at present) the whole definition of “cMOOC” is still amorphous anyway, given the “massive open online” learning nature of this G+ community, would it be fair to say that this G+ space is also a “MOOC”? … Should the term MOOC be redefined as “Massive Open Online COMMUNITY = MOOC”?

iCARE2 ASK PB-20 to flip blend + LOL! DO YOU?

Link to presentation

Model Practices on how to Acquire Skills and Knowledge (ASK) for “flipping”, “blending” and Learning On Line (LOL), in PB-12/K-16/P-20 initiatives, including Enrichment, After-school, Adult Literacy, Post Secondary, Undergraduate and Graduate Programs, by instigating Competencies, Applicability, Relevancy, Evaluation, and Exploration (iCARE2), relevant to today’s economic challenges, technology advancements, and globalized expectations.

Coaching Metacognition

Directions in Educational Research

0026Pfiruz270506

Link to presentation

Coaching Metacognition:
A comparative Study of Quantitative & Qualitative
Longitudinal Action Research Case Studies

Hussin, Dept of Curriculum & Instructional Technology, University of Malaya
Felder, Department of Chemical Engineering, North Carolina State University
Brent, Education Designs Inc. Cary, North Carolina

This paper discusses “Coaching” as a method to nurture Metacognitive Learning. Differentiated from “Teaching”, “Mentoring”, or “Training”, the methodology of “Coaching Metacognition” focuses on self-evaluation as a primary motivator towards self-actualization. Two unrelated longitudinal case studies, one quantitative and the other qualitative are presented as a parallel study. The first was a study on chemical engineering undergraduate students by Felder and the second by Hussin, was a series of studies on a variety of learners, ranging from creative-design based undergraduate and graduate students in architecture, mass communication, multimedia and education, to working professional adults in the corporate and business world. In all cases, the research focus in this parallel study is the long-term effects of metacognitive coaching. The period of “experiment treatment” varied from case to case, providing a spectrum of longitudinal observations. The long-term performance outcome was measured through a variety of modes, including self-perception, peer-evaluation, and contemporary contextual-norms. This paper proposes possible maximization of both quantitative and qualitative methods in action research with new affordances made possible by new technologies.

Key words:
Coaching, Metacognition, Technology

Creative Commons License
Coaching Metacognition by Roz Hussin @ FHussin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Building a W.R.E.C.K.

I wrote this book chapter many years ago, before the terminology of “social networking” even existed.

Synopsis
In this new era of technology saturation within our Working and Living Environment (WorLE), “learning” will inexorably take place via “osmosis.” With or without formal instruction, the elderly non-tech-savvy businessman will learn from environmental influence. The proposition to formulate this new Instructional Architecture (IA) mechanism is termed as “Worldwide Reformation of Education and Corporation Knowledge,” or WRECK for short, an apt acronym to describe the radical changes necessary to build from such an idealistic blueprint. To create a WRECK system, the existing system needs to be “wrecked”. First, id’s must be involved in content creation. They need to provide instructional design input in the development of content-specific industry training. Second, id’s must be immersed within the corporate sector as Human Resource Managers (HRM). Third, id’s must be adept in global issues, ranging from cutting edge technological advances, to government and international policies. Fourth, id’s must infiltrate the realm of governance and policy making. In summary, id’s must infiltrate the workforce in both the education and corporate sectors. Both tasks, “educating corporations” as well as “corporatizing education”, are equally arduous and challenging, yet requisite for future progress.

Link to original text.

Creative Commons License
Building a WRECK (Worldwide Reformation of Education and Corporation Knowledge): A Proposition Paper for Instructional Architecture in the New Millennium by Roz Hussin @ FHussin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.