Open Learning 2018: a cMOOC

Have you heard about this cMOOC on Open Learning?  I have only just learned that the c is about connection and community, and c courses are free-form in nature.  They have no formal structure or assignments as other MOOCs have.

Beyond that I am still wrapping my head around what a cMOOC is and whether I am up for the challenge.  Stephen Downes in his blog post, Becoming MOOC, lays it out very eloquently.  I appreciate his explanation of the types of literacies that appropriate for a cMOOC: 21st century literacies and digital literacies through references to the Framework for 21st Century Learning put out by The Partnership for 21st Century Skills and the Mozilla Foundation’s Web Literacy Map.  Sadly, my explanation of his post would pale in comparison to what Stephen has written.  I guess I have not yet become MOOC.  Please take the time to read his post.

What I can say is that, unless you have the skills associated with these literacies, your chances of being successful in a cMOOC are probably slim.  So, when considering whether to ‘enroll’ in a cMOOC you need to ask yourself if you have these skills:

  • collaboration
  • creativity
  • communication
  • critical thinking
  • workplace skills
  • information media skills
  • traditional core types of literacy and numeracy
  • exploring (within the “chaotic environment”)
  • building (aka content creation like authoring and art)
  • connecting (it is primarily about being social)

Or, do you feel that you can develop these skills well enough and quickly enough through the course of the cMOOC to be an effective contributor?  Do you have, as Downes quotes K. Brennan, ‘self-efficacy’ to achieve success in the cMOOC?  A tough question, I know.  My answer is, ‘I hope so.’

Advertisements

Topic 3.2 Is there truly a global perspective on metaliteracy? Or is metaliteracy global?

December has just about come and gone.  The semester is long gone.  And 2013 is about to disappear.  And yet I am still slogging thorough the metaliteracy material.  Whew!  I do like the MOOC format but my pace is far slower that the projected time for the folks who took the course for credit.  Many congratulations to them who completed the course in that timeframe.  Nonetheless I am continuing . . . when I can.

Thinking back to Paul Prinsloo’s talk on a global perspective on metaliteracy, I found that, just prior to his talk, I was becoming comfortable with the definition of metaliteracy.  And then Paul went and blew it all apart.  (Apologies, this is going to be a bit of a brain dump.  But if you go and listen to Paul’s talk you will understand why.) [This is from a journal entry back on 11.15.13] I think what jumps out is the fluidity and liquid nature of metaliteracy.  Metaliteracy actually makes more sense  than what seems to be a somewhat static definition from Tom and Trudi.  Paul expanded/blew up the definition and got me thinking about the context.  I think Paul’s emphasis on having a ‘critical consciousness’ for metaliteracy as agency moves my understanding of metaliteracy from a concept word and noun to an action word and verb.  This definition makes metaliteracy far more multi-faceted.  More complicated?  Yes.  Harder to understand?  Grasp?  Maybe.  Really, I think this global perspective clarifies what it is, defines it.  I also appreciate how Paul’s ideas ask some poignant questions that force one to think deeply and ask more questions.  In his talk Paul really took metaliteracy and broke it down and built on it at the same time.  What metaliteracy seems to be is critical thinking on steroids.

[This is from another journal entry on 12.4.13]  I like this idea of ‘liquid’ metaliteracy and how one should read the world before reading the word (Freire), how nothing is neutral and Paul’s (in)conclusions.  What Paul does is contextualizes metaliteracy within the global framework.  And although I felt like the metaliteracy rug had been yanked out from under me, what Paul talked and said made sense.  Once I understood his point(s), it became logical that it is necessary to frame metaliteracy in this way.  Without this frame, one cannot really understand what metaliteracy is, why it is important, how it is significant, and the kinds of impacts it has, and can have, on so many different things, people, topics/subjects, thought processes . . . etc. etc. etc.  Metaliteracy cannot be viewed without a global perspective.  And, originally, I thought Paul was only giving his perspective on metaliteracy.  But, upon long reflection and review of my notes, I realized he was, and is, talking about metaliteracy globally.  Metaliteracy is global.  I also appreciated his point about  how, in this networked age, ‘not all [meaning people] are included, but all are affected’ in this Meta/discourse literacy.  It effects everyone, but not everyone is a participant.  Also, his second (in)conclusion [I love that word]: ‘It is crucial to understand who produces (and consumes) information, for what purpose, what claims are made, and who/what supports/excludes the producers and claims.’

To answer my question(s) from this post’s title.  Although I think I already did.  Metaliteracy is global.  Trying to argue that there is a global perspective on metaliteracy is shortsighted and suggests a lack of understanding of what metaliteracy is and can do.  Unless, you want to say that one cannot truly be metaliterate without a global perspective.