After reading Siemens' article (sorry - paper) I can't see how Downes can be any worse. I hope not. Of course, it probably will be since 2 years have gone by which is plenty of time to muddy the waters, throw in a load more off-topic ideas and suggestions and wrap it all up as an educational masterpiece.
Downes (2007), What connectivism is
Alas. not much better.
At its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed
across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of
the ability to construct and traverse those networks.
A bit like walking between libraries to get a book then? You can have a network of libraries that communicate with each other and share resources.
The article seems to say the Connectivism is ethereal, doesn't exist in the material world and of course we get to think about the number of Angels you can fit on a pin-head. Later on fairies and pixie dust are introduced into the argument.
I think connectivism is nothing. Just a play on words, trying to mimic some computer networking, brain synapsis functioning and a statement on what takes place already and has done for many years.
Not impressed.
Activity 19 - I considered these points in the previous post. I can see the point of designing a course that allows the learner to follow their curiosity and making what they find part of the experience, but then we may as well just say, this is the topic, go away and investigate it then report back what you found. That covers just about all the "key principles".
Sunday 28 April 2013
Saturday 27 April 2013
Week 5 Activity 18 - Connectivism - Shredding Siemens
5.4 Connectivism
Connectivism
has been described by George Siemens, its original proponent, as a
learning theory for the digital age. As such, connectivism is often
referenced when people talk about MOOCs or learning with OER. Most
learning theories were developed prior to the digital, networked age and
have been adapted to fit with it, whereas connectivism was developed
specifically in response to the possibilities offered by a global
network. The question ‘Does this give us anything new?’ is also relevant
for connectivism, as some of the criticism about it has been that
connectivism repackages existing ideas.
Siemens (2005), Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age
Connectivism should not be confused with constructivism. (Papert?)
Social environment should drive the pedagogy - okay. Like schools were created for industrial revolution and so may not match today's needs (Sir Robertson on this).
“One of the most persuasive factors is the shrinking half-life of knowledge. The “half-life of knowledge” is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete.
But principles do not become obsolete and a fact does not become half a fact.
Just because the amount of "knowledge" (which has not been defined) may be doubling every 18 months (Moore's law) doesn't mean that it's worth is halving.
This paper is all over the place without any supporting justifications. Too many unsupported statements across many fields and topics.
Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed). - I agree with this point.
Do we gain knowledge through experiences?
Yes, burn your hand (experience) don't touch fire (knowledge)
Is it innate (present at birth)?
No. Instincts are not knowledge, they are pre-wired instincts. Explain an instinct.
Do we acquire it through thinking and reasoning?
Yes, it is possible, but that is reflection which was seeded by an experience in the first place. This leads to wisdom.
Is knowledge actually knowable?
No. You need to have processed it first. Only when the experience has been processed does it become knowledge. You cannot force feed someone knowledge, it would be meaningless to them.
Is it directly knowable through human experience?
No, needs to be processed (sorted, searched, linked and filed away in the right place).
Objectivism (similar to behaviorism) states that reality is external and is objective, and knowledge is gained through experiences.
No, reality is internal. No, it's subjective. Yes, knowledge gained by experience.
Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) states that reality is interpreted, and knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking.
Yes, reality interpreted. Agree on the knowledge part - I'm okay with this.
Interpretivism (similar to constructivism) states that reality is internal, and knowledge is constructed.What's the difference between "internal" and "interpreted"? I think reality is interpreted to become internal. Knowledge is constructed from the negotiation between experience and thinking.
So, I am either a pragmatic interpretist or an Interpretistic pragmatist. I think the first one needs to happen in that order. So I will henceforth define myself as a pragmatic interpretist. And a hungry one at that - so time to eat something...
I see knowledge as a connection of inter-connected and intertwined facts with subjective and emotional weighting. That was my thought when answering the above, so therefore disagree with
"All of these learning theories hold the notion that knowledge is an objective (or a state) that is attainable (if not already innate) through either reasoning or experiences."
I didn't assume that when thinking about the above.
So my best learning system for the student would be:
1. Provide many examples that allow for the reality to be interpreted
2. Have the student think and reflect on the examples
3. Let them construct their own example (to demonstrate learning) or provide a slightly modified example requiring demonstration of understanding
Which is what I do, although the reflection time could be longer and more guided.
I disagree with Behaviorism - internal activities are more important then observable behavior. It isn't all about simple stimuli and responses. Learning is not just about behavior change.
Cognitivism is too basic and takes no account of emotion and subjectivity or instinct.
Constructivism - okay. But there is more to it than creating knowledge from understanding experiences. This is the closest I agree with.
So I am now a pragmatic interpretistic constructivist, cool! Also a less hungry one now.
(I'll have to work this into a report somewhere).
"These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology)." - Err... Look over there, there's some learning going on outside of any people!
i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology.
What crap is this? A.I? Are we at that point yet?
How on earth can you quantify the value of what is learned. It is totally subjective.
"the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring." - What is that supposed to mean? It's meaningless.
"The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins." Yes, but also it's a continuous process during learning, and explains why people change their direction or drop out of a MOOC.
All over the place again - ramblings of a mad man. And this got peer reviewed and published?
"new sciences (chaos and networks)" and goldfish and cheese. I mean, lets just bung any old topics together, what about "string theory"? Indeed. Let's talk about bio-mechanics.
"How are learning theories impacted when knowledge is no longer acquired in the linear manner?" Oh come on! Since when did knowledge become acquired in a liner fashion, err. never.
Okay, the introduction is a poor hotchpotch of ideas, off topic suggestions and biased unsupported statements. The editor must be a very close friend or more.
"chaos is “a cryptic form of order”" so stability is a "random form of disorder". Which it is if you wait long enough or take one event/snap shop from the random form of disorder.
I say, that's darn profound, or is all bollocks?
"Alterations within the network have ripple effects on the whole." It all depends upon the type of network topology
Connectivism - this is bullshit. It's definition is too undefined and consists of a few known ideas strung together.
Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Not new. Better to check with multiple sources when finding out about something. We call it, taking a second opinion.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
We call this research or looking things up that may be related.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Like my toaster. Is it really there when I leave the kitchen, that's the question. Of course, everything is made of atoms and so it's just a case of re-arranging them to form some learning.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
We call that being curious or inquisitive.
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
This is known as not getting Alzheimer's. Also known as moving primary learning into long term learning (storage).
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
We call this creativity and imagination.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
And also everyone in the world.
Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
Oh God. Come on, get some perspective man "Shifting reality", only after a few too many beers. "Information climate" - do me a favour! So, to sum up, we call this changing your mind.
Data resides in a database. It is interpreted to form information, and from information you derive knowledge, having gone through a process described at the start above, from which learning may take place. Knowledge does not reside in a database. Knowledge may one day reside in a A.I. self-aware computer, but not yet.
"Quantum theory of trust" - Is this similar to the relative theory of reliability or the Newtonian theory of honour, or is that all bollocks also. Clearly some ones mind is in a spin in the wrong orbit.
What's with all the quotes at the end. Is this supposed to be supportive evidence to the paper or was it tacked on to fill out a few extra words?
Well, this paper just severely reduced the status of Mr. George Siemens in my opinion as well as the
"International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance learning". I see the current issue on the home page is Sept 2012. I am not surprised.
Thursday 18 April 2013
Week 5 Activity 17- Pedagogy in open learning - NOTES and Activity
Week 5 Activity 17 - Pedagogy in open learning
After studying this week, you should understand:
Work for a Uni then publish or die?
But when goods become digital and available online then scarcity disappears.
They are non-rivalrous in nature, so if you take a copy, it is still available for others.
Why non-rivalrous? - I think any digital artifact is in competition with others, unless its a first original.
Characterized by or given to rivalry or competition
DRM is often backed up with strong legal enforcement, for example the recent case of torrent sharing site Pirate Bay being fined 30 Million Swedish Kronor and receiving a jail sentence for encouraging illegal file sharing.
How much did they pay?
How many of them are in jail?
Has the site been taken down?
Resource Based Learning
In a world of abundance the emphasis is less on the development of specific learning materials than on the selection, aggregation and interpretation of existing materials.
Problem based learning
(know by the rest of us as "solving a problem")
As with RBLit may need recasting to fully utilise the new found abundance of content, where there is greater stress on finding and evaluating resources from a wide range, and the utilisation of social networks as a resource.
The intention of this article is not to set out a guide for teaching with abundance or even to evaluate the effectiveness of these theories,
Clearly true.
The issue for educators is twofold I would suggest: firstly how can they best take advantage of abundance in their own teaching practice, and secondly how do we best equip learners to make use of it?
Yes, it's a pity this wasn't a paper addressing these issues.
Post a comment to contribute an answer to one of these questions, drawing on your own context and experience. For example, you might suggest that we could best equip learners to make use of abundant content by developing their critical analysis skills.
How can I best take advantage of abundance in my own teaching practice
Having read over the posts here, what I suggest is basically the same, namely filtering content for students. Only recently, in the last year or so, have we (my computing faculty and I) begun to give our KS3 students a choice, out of two options. For example, they could use a text based resource or a set of training videos. Or they may use either this web based tutorial or another different tutorial. In higher years KS4 and 5, they take on greater responsibility for their own learning and have a greater choice, presented by us and/or of their own choosing if we agree to their choice..
Context: A typical example is locating a resource to teach the Java programming language. Google "Learning Java Programming" gives 13,500,000 hits. Below, apart from point 1 which I haven't done yet, is my system for dealing with the abundance of Computer Science related resources available today.
After studying this week, you should understand:
- the impact of abundant content
- connectivism as pedagogy for online courses
- rhizomatic learning
- how to take into account learner experience when designing a connectivist course
- the advantages and disadvantages of specified pedagogies.
Activity 17: The role of abundance
Timing: 4 hours
- Read Weller (2011), A pedagogy of abundance. In the conclusion two questions are posed: ‘The issue for educators is twofold I would suggest: firstly how can they best take advantage of abundance in their own teaching practice, and secondly how do we best equip learners to make use of it?’
- Post a comment to contribute an answer to one of these questions, drawing on your own context and experience. For example, you might suggest that we could best equip learners to make use of abundant content by developing their critical analysis skills.
Read Weller (2011), A pedagogy of abundance.
The shift to abundant content has as profound implications for education as it has for content industries
.
My ideas:
- Time spent finding the best
- Having found it and begun using it, only to have to disappear or get "updated" and changed so that it no matches how one used it
- Overload and then despondency
- Reliance on one single search engine results (i.e. Google) and then only from the first page
- How to teach the searching (Use the Google Power Search MOOC)
Work for a Uni then publish or die?
But when goods become digital and available online then scarcity disappears.
They are non-rivalrous in nature, so if you take a copy, it is still available for others.
Why non-rivalrous? - I think any digital artifact is in competition with others, unless its a first original.
ri·val·rous
Prone to or subject to rivalry: "rivalrous presidential aspirants".Characterized by or given to rivalry or competition
DRM is often backed up with strong legal enforcement, for example the recent case of torrent sharing site Pirate Bay being fined 30 Million Swedish Kronor and receiving a jail sentence for encouraging illegal file sharing.
How much did they pay?
How many of them are in jail?
Has the site been taken down?
Resource Based Learning
In a world of abundance the emphasis is less on the development of specific learning materials than on the selection, aggregation and interpretation of existing materials.
Problem based learning
(know by the rest of us as "solving a problem")
As with RBLit may need recasting to fully utilise the new found abundance of content, where there is greater stress on finding and evaluating resources from a wide range, and the utilisation of social networks as a resource.
The intention of this article is not to set out a guide for teaching with abundance or even to evaluate the effectiveness of these theories,
Clearly true.
The issue for educators is twofold I would suggest: firstly how can they best take advantage of abundance in their own teaching practice, and secondly how do we best equip learners to make use of it?
Yes, it's a pity this wasn't a paper addressing these issues.
Post a comment to contribute an answer to one of these questions, drawing on your own context and experience. For example, you might suggest that we could best equip learners to make use of abundant content by developing their critical analysis skills.
How can I best take advantage of abundance in my own teaching practice
Having read over the posts here, what I suggest is basically the same, namely filtering content for students. Only recently, in the last year or so, have we (my computing faculty and I) begun to give our KS3 students a choice, out of two options. For example, they could use a text based resource or a set of training videos. Or they may use either this web based tutorial or another different tutorial. In higher years KS4 and 5, they take on greater responsibility for their own learning and have a greater choice, presented by us and/or of their own choosing if we agree to their choice..
Context: A typical example is locating a resource to teach the Java programming language. Google "Learning Java Programming" gives 13,500,000 hits. Below, apart from point 1 which I haven't done yet, is my system for dealing with the abundance of Computer Science related resources available today.
- Do the Google Power Searching and Advanced Power Searching MOOC http://www.powersearchingwithgoogle.com/
- Set a fixed amount of time to search for, find and obtain suitable resources using peer & student suggestions and top rated site (from your own experience) recommendations.
- Gather 3 resources that might be suitable.
- Examine them and pick the best in your opinion.
- Change your mindset and understand you may not have selected the best or most perfect resources for your class and so will need to live with that fact.
- Use the resource and stick with it through thick and thin. Do not dump it for another 1/3 or less the way through. Otherwise, you may form the habit and become one of those people who jump from one resource to the next and do not get anything done.
- At the end of the course/learning with the resource used, evaluate it, re-use it or start again at point 2 and use one of the other resources short-listed
Tuesday 16 April 2013
Activity 16: Examining a definition
Activity 16: Examining a definition
A PLN consists of people we have physically met, and studied with, and continue to engage with over time exchanging resources, ideas and information via the Internet irrespective of the communication tool or media used.
Now you have a definition of PLN, the question you need to answer is:
Will try to watch the OU live session of 11 April. - Didn't work.
Write a blog post setting out a position statement on what PLNs are and whether it is a useful term or not.
I think I answered that here: http://davidbrettell-h817.blogspot.com/2013/04/week-4-activity-15-defining-pln.html
I do not think it is a useful term. I think having a Peer Learning Network or just a Professional Network is better, but then this just becomes two different phone lists, one called friends and another called work or learning.
A PLN consists of people we have physically met, and studied with, and continue to engage with over time exchanging resources, ideas and information via the Internet irrespective of the communication tool or media used.
Now you have a definition of PLN, the question you need to answer is:
- ‘Does this offer anything new?’
Will try to watch the OU live session of 11 April. - Didn't work.
Write a blog post setting out a position statement on what PLNs are and whether it is a useful term or not.
I think I answered that here: http://davidbrettell-h817.blogspot.com/2013/04/week-4-activity-15-defining-pln.html
I do not think it is a useful term. I think having a Peer Learning Network or just a Professional Network is better, but then this just becomes two different phone lists, one called friends and another called work or learning.
Week 4 - Activity 15: Defining a PLN
Week 4 - Activity 15: Defining a PLN NOTES
VLE = Virtual Learning Environment / LMS = Learning Management System
Institution server hosted, structured, tool - like Moodle
AKA - school whiteboard and teacher notes
PLE = Personal Learning Environment / PLN = Personal Learning Network
Student initiated use of tools and collection of peers
AKA - pen and paper with friends
PLN = Personal Learning Network (or perhaps Peer Learning Network)
A PLN emphasises that it is the people in the network that are significant
Which is great if the peers aren't a bunch of dummies i.e. in secondary school environment bird of a feather flock together and so the peer network would need to be teacher assigned.
Is this not over-rated? what happened to the master-pupil relationship? PLN could be too nebulous. You may have 10,000 FB friends, or 1,000 Twitter followers but how many of them would actually help? Still a bit cynical over this.
Week 4 forum - http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/forumng/view.php?id=13741
Perhaps it's just me but do we need a PLN? For example, over the last year or more I have been studying and reading up on Climate Change. This was initiated from early discussions with a friend involved in this field, and proof-reading his environmental studies textbook. My far-more-than-I knowledgeable friend acts as a mentor for me and discussion with him, exchanging links and papers is more than sufficient.
I do not need, want or have the time to devote to maintaining a PLN. I see it more as an encumbrance requiring the taking up of my time. Just exchanging resources and ideas with one person, a more knowledgeable person (a mentor, guide, "master") is sufficient. Since I am involved in secondary education I like to think how secondary students could form a PLN. Some of my older classes, IB level, form private FB pages for their class and that works well they say. Although their PLN consist of the people they meet in their class. I do not think a middle school student, KS3 or 4, is able to form an effective PLN. In particular the weaker student is most likely going to form a PLN consisting of his/her friends, also perhaps the weaker students in the class/year group. Likewise, the high flying students PLNs will consist of their own upper level group. I don't see PLNs working in secondary school, particularly with concerns for eSafety if they are open to the public. So, back to PLNs in further and adult education. Who has the time to maintain meaningful online relationships to further their learning? I do not. For me then, a PLN consists of people we have physically met, and studied with, and continue to engage with over time exchanging resources, ideas and information via the Internet irrespective of the communication tool or media used.
I can support this definition a little further by explaining that a group of teachers at my school began the Bath Uni MA together (with support from the school) and we formed a weekly study group. Over time this became less necessary but we stay in touch via email, asking questions and sending resources. Is this a PLN? Or is it just a group of colleagues meeting up now and then to chat and swap ideas on how their MA is going?
"Rajagopalet al (2012) explain that we are in control of how we network and who we network with and have the ability, supported by technology, to develop the relationships that will further our own development: “An individual can therefore create and orchestrate ties to effectively support learning needs and potentially use technology to support this network, effectively making it a personal learning network (PLN)” (see Ian Luxford, 9 April 13, posting above)
To me this seems to be stating the blindingly obvious. Aren't we all in control of who we decide to be friends with, online or off? Is your phone list your PLN? I must be missing the bigger picture here because I can't helping thinking that this PLN term and idea is over-rated.
VLE = Virtual Learning Environment / LMS = Learning Management System
Institution server hosted, structured, tool - like Moodle
AKA - school whiteboard and teacher notes
PLE = Personal Learning Environment / PLN = Personal Learning Network
Student initiated use of tools and collection of peers
AKA - pen and paper with friends
PLN = Personal Learning Network (or perhaps Peer Learning Network)
A PLN emphasises that it is the people in the network that are significant
Which is great if the peers aren't a bunch of dummies i.e. in secondary school environment bird of a feather flock together and so the peer network would need to be teacher assigned.
Is this not over-rated? what happened to the master-pupil relationship? PLN could be too nebulous. You may have 10,000 FB friends, or 1,000 Twitter followers but how many of them would actually help? Still a bit cynical over this.
Timing: 2 hours (2 days then!)
As with many new terms, PLN is used in a variety of contexts. The Wikipedia entry defines it as:
‘an informal learningnetwork that consists of the people a learner interacts with and derives knowledge from in a personal learning environment
- Use search tools and the discussion in the forum to formulate your own, one-sentence definition of a PLN.
Perhaps it's just me but do we need a PLN? For example, over the last year or more I have been studying and reading up on Climate Change. This was initiated from early discussions with a friend involved in this field, and proof-reading his environmental studies textbook. My far-more-than-I knowledgeable friend acts as a mentor for me and discussion with him, exchanging links and papers is more than sufficient.
I do not need, want or have the time to devote to maintaining a PLN. I see it more as an encumbrance requiring the taking up of my time. Just exchanging resources and ideas with one person, a more knowledgeable person (a mentor, guide, "master") is sufficient. Since I am involved in secondary education I like to think how secondary students could form a PLN. Some of my older classes, IB level, form private FB pages for their class and that works well they say. Although their PLN consist of the people they meet in their class. I do not think a middle school student, KS3 or 4, is able to form an effective PLN. In particular the weaker student is most likely going to form a PLN consisting of his/her friends, also perhaps the weaker students in the class/year group. Likewise, the high flying students PLNs will consist of their own upper level group. I don't see PLNs working in secondary school, particularly with concerns for eSafety if they are open to the public. So, back to PLNs in further and adult education. Who has the time to maintain meaningful online relationships to further their learning? I do not. For me then, a PLN consists of people we have physically met, and studied with, and continue to engage with over time exchanging resources, ideas and information via the Internet irrespective of the communication tool or media used.
I can support this definition a little further by explaining that a group of teachers at my school began the Bath Uni MA together (with support from the school) and we formed a weekly study group. Over time this became less necessary but we stay in touch via email, asking questions and sending resources. Is this a PLN? Or is it just a group of colleagues meeting up now and then to chat and swap ideas on how their MA is going?
"Rajagopalet al (2012) explain that we are in control of how we network and who we network with and have the ability, supported by technology, to develop the relationships that will further our own development: “An individual can therefore create and orchestrate ties to effectively support learning needs and potentially use technology to support this network, effectively making it a personal learning network (PLN)” (see Ian Luxford, 9 April 13, posting above)
To me this seems to be stating the blindingly obvious. Aren't we all in control of who we decide to be friends with, online or off? Is your phone list your PLN? I must be missing the bigger picture here because I can't helping thinking that this PLN term and idea is over-rated.
Week 4 - Activity 14: Comparing MOOCs
Week 4 - Activity 14: Comparing MOOCs
Please scroll down a few lines for the start of the activity post proper, thank you.
Compare either DS106 or the Change MOOC with offerings from Udacity or Coursera .
(You may not be able to access a course on these sites without signing up – there is no need to do this but you do need to ascertain what you can from the information around the course and the approach of the providers.)
Write a blog post comparing the courses with regards to:
technology
pedagogy
general approach and philosophy.
Remember to tag your blog post with #h817open and to read and comment on some of the posts of your fellow students.
DS106: Digital Storytelling (also affectionately known as ds106) is an open, online course that happens at various times throughout the year at the University of Mary Washington... but you can join in whenever you like and leave whenever you need. This course is free to anyone who wants to take it, and the only requirements are a real computer, a hardy internet connection, preferrably a domain of your own and some commodity web hosting, and all the creativity you can muster.
Change MOOC
This course will introduce participants to the major contributions being made to the field of instructional technology by researchers today. Each week, a new professor or researcher will introduce his or her central contribution to the field.
Date: September 12, 2011 - May 2012
Technologies Used: Through out this "course" participants will use a variety of technologies, for example, blogs, Second Life, RSS Readers, UStream, etc. Course resources will be provided using gRSShopper and online seminars delivered using Elluminate.
Facilitators: Dave Cormier, George Siemens and Stephen Downes will co-facilitate this innovative and timely course. Both of these are cMOOCs. DS106 looks the more creative and still active, but I will select The Change MOOC and Udacity. Udacity because it mainly offers CS type courses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
At an initial glance we can see the Change MOOC is classed as a cMOOC (connectivism) not least of all because of the key facilitators of this MOOC being Dave Cormier, George Siemens and Stephen Downes. All of whom are the founding fathers of the MOOC, later classified as the cMOOC. Udacity is one of the"fixed" xMOOCs (including EdX, Coursera). Both Udacity and Coursera are for profit companies. So, with The Change MOOC we have an Open free MOOC compared with a for profit, closed (although still free to students) fixed MOOC. I also chose Udacity over coursera for this comparison as I originally signed up for their CS101 course in May 2012.
Technology
The Change MOOC platform looks like Moodle although is running off Downes' gRSShopper software. The MOOC itself offers MP3 audio, Elluminate recordings (which was bought by Blackboard and renamed to Blackboard Collaborate - a Java run video, audio and workspace collaboration and discussion tool). PowerPoint attached slides, blogs, RSS feeds, Google calendar, a daily email and most likely Google Docs and they ran a backchannel. In essence the MOOC lives up to it's networking name and social participatory sharing, networking founding MOOC principle. Participants are welcomed and encouraged to make use of any technology to communicate their ideas and reflections with each other.
Udacity, created by a Stanford team, is far more restrictive, fixed, in the technology it uses or requires the student to use. It makes use of "bite-sized videos" within a closed and structured platform. I believe Udacity is currently developing a platform for others to use. Udacity offers 22 courses, mainly comp. sci related, with subtitles in "Spanish, Chinese, French, Portuguese and even less widespread languages such as Croatian.". The lack of language support did not seem a major issue or concern for the cMOOC fraternity I noticed in my literature review. The courses do not appear to be linked to any particular university, nor do the instructors. For example the instructor on the single Physics course, Andy Brown, was biking around the world before creating his Physics course. Udacity do seem to have HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey sending out their compute generated emails, which is obviously a major technological bonus. Despite almost a year without logging in to Udacity I am able to resume my Introduction to Computer Science course from where I left off.
Pedagogy
For the Change, and other cMOOCs such as this current OU MOOC the methods and practice of teaching is by total immersion into a social peer supported learning bubble. The student is free to make use of the tools of their choice (e.g. I do not make use of Twitter but prefer blogging and reading other student's blogs). I scan emailed forum posts for points of interest. cMOOCs have a supporting structure but they are both the "Wild West" and the "Party where you can wander around eating nibbles and joining groups for chats". The beginner cMOOCer must have developed Internet and IT skills and must be organized (i.e. grouping bookmarks, be adept at searching blogs and forums) etc. if they are to remain motivated within the cMOOC. The pedagogy here is one of constructivism and I would also say experimentalism. The social aspect of this MOOC is very strong, leading to clusters of likeminded people who will continue to discuss and communicate at the end of the MOOC schedule.
The xMOOC is highly structured, less flexible in Internet tool use, in fact everything required is provided in the platform, and so anything added would be optional by the student (for example copying of their work into their own blog). The advantage of the xMOOC is that one can join at any time, where as the cMOOCs seem to run for a few times then close down. One feels alone and like the single independent learner in an xMOOC (unlike the feeling of being part of a big group with the cMOOC). Udacity does it's best to offer up a Blog (but this looks structured and uninviting - sort of the nerd in the corner). They organize "Meetups" and indeed there was one in Bangkok attended by 4 people. No more seem planned. The leaning is simply this: Listen, practice, listen, practice. There are elements of building on past learning and skills, where the programming problems (for the CS intro) got more tricky and made use of previous content covered. The activity problems, program code to write, required a very good understanding of the previous material if one was to be successful. As stated in the literature, the pedagogy is standard fair and quite old. Learning to learn, not required here.
General approach and philosophy
The cMOOC (The Change MOOC) has the advantage of keeping the student engaged and participating by the use of many and varied knowledge delivery systems plus of course asking the student to create digital artifacts (products) using any tool their hearts desire. This freedom of product creation tool means that there will be participants without those tool skills who will feel inferior or lack the confidence to engage and may lurk. Although lurkers have their place to. Peer pressure and "keeping up with the Jones'" may be an issue. On the other hand, this kind of MOOC and the various means of engaging with peers allows for communication at all levels (plus I think, in general these MOOCs attract a more creative and genial crowd). I believe that the MOOC founders might be a little upset that their MOOC ideas have been hijacked by what people term the "elite" universities, who garner all the media attention (Bates was certainly unimpressed with Daphne Koller's Ted Talk). However, many people will feel more at home following a cMOOC course than an xMOOC course. I think the cMOOC philosophy matches more closely to the education for everyone (rich, poor, developed, undeveloped country) ideal than the xMOOC does. Purely because of the openness in tools in cases of restricted Internet bandwidth or government controls.
The xMOOC course appeals to my innate logical, everything sorted and structured anal personality. I know where I am, literally, with a xMOOC. My progress can almost be measured down to the nano-second. The bite sized videos tend, on the CS course anyhow, to make use of the instructor drawing sketches (known to be preferred by many - aka Kharn Academy except we see pen and hand) which then morph, as if by magic, in to MC quizzes in order to test understanding. These computer graded short quizzes combined with automatically graded bigger activities is an area not seen in the cMOOC, although there is no reason I suppose why a cMOOC could not use a tool such as Yacapaca. Eventually, as the Coursera contract states, for profit xMOOCs will, in my opinion, start charging for something. Be it certificates at the end, or selling student data to employment agencies. This potential payment and the lack of media delivery flexibility may be restrictive to poorer students with low Internet bandwidth.
Opinion
I think a person needs to be far more self-motivated in order to complete a xMOOC course, compared to a cMOOC course mainly because of the lack of functionality to "see" and share problems with others (despite the 22 minute coursera stated peer answer time). To see that others are experiencing the same problems you had. The cMOOC has a community of supportive learners who are willing to help which does not seem so apparent with the xMOOC. xMOOC content comes from the so called, best universities in the world, and although this does not necessarily mean the teaching is the best in the world, the chance to be able to access it for free is an amazing opportunity. The xMOOC will be the survivor if there is a MOOC challenge, because of the simplicity and ease of starting any course and the clean interface. By including more social learning opportunities into the xMOOC people will pay for this online course eventually. I know that if I made it to the final exam of a MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale etc. course I would certainly be willing to pay $100 or more for a certificate on passing the exam. I also believe that these certificates are going to be far more relevant to employers than say a Bath Master's degree. An applicant with evidence of having recently successfully completed a few xMOOCs on their CV outweighs the applicant who did an MA ten years back, for a whole host of reasons.
References
See here for my notes and references that have gone into the above: http://davidbrettell-h817.blogspot.com/2013/04/week-4-activity-12-learner-experience.html
Please scroll down a few lines for the start of the activity post proper, thank you.
Compare either DS106
or the Change MOOC with offerings from Udacity or Coursera . (You may not be able to access a course on these sites without signing up – there is no need to do this but you do need to ascertain what you can from the information around the course and the approach of the providers.)
Write a blog post comparing the courses with regards to:
technology
pedagogy
general approach and philosophy.
Remember to tag your blog post with #h817open and to read and comment on some of the posts of your fellow students.
DS106: Digital Storytelling (also affectionately known as ds106) is an open, online course that happens at various times throughout the year at the University of Mary Washington... but you can join in whenever you like and leave whenever you need. This course is free to anyone who wants to take it, and the only requirements are a real computer, a hardy internet connection, preferrably a domain of your own and some commodity web hosting, and all the creativity you can muster.
Change MOOC
This course will introduce participants to the major contributions being made to the field of instructional technology by researchers today. Each week, a new professor or researcher will introduce his or her central contribution to the field.
Date: September 12, 2011 - May 2012
Technologies Used: Through out this "course" participants will use a variety of technologies, for example, blogs, Second Life, RSS Readers, UStream, etc. Course resources will be provided using gRSShopper and online seminars delivered using Elluminate.
Facilitators: Dave Cormier, George Siemens and Stephen Downes will co-facilitate this innovative and timely course. Both of these are cMOOCs. DS106 looks the more creative and still active, but I will select The Change MOOC and Udacity. Udacity because it mainly offers CS type courses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
At an initial glance we can see the Change MOOC is classed as a cMOOC (connectivism) not least of all because of the key facilitators of this MOOC being Dave Cormier, George Siemens and Stephen Downes. All of whom are the founding fathers of the MOOC, later classified as the cMOOC. Udacity is one of the"fixed" xMOOCs (including EdX, Coursera). Both Udacity and Coursera are for profit companies. So, with The Change MOOC we have an Open free MOOC compared with a for profit, closed (although still free to students) fixed MOOC. I also chose Udacity over coursera for this comparison as I originally signed up for their CS101 course in May 2012.
Technology
The Change MOOC platform looks like Moodle although is running off Downes' gRSShopper software. The MOOC itself offers MP3 audio, Elluminate recordings (which was bought by Blackboard and renamed to Blackboard Collaborate - a Java run video, audio and workspace collaboration and discussion tool). PowerPoint attached slides, blogs, RSS feeds, Google calendar, a daily email and most likely Google Docs and they ran a backchannel. In essence the MOOC lives up to it's networking name and social participatory sharing, networking founding MOOC principle. Participants are welcomed and encouraged to make use of any technology to communicate their ideas and reflections with each other.
Udacity, created by a Stanford team, is far more restrictive, fixed, in the technology it uses or requires the student to use. It makes use of "bite-sized videos" within a closed and structured platform. I believe Udacity is currently developing a platform for others to use. Udacity offers 22 courses, mainly comp. sci related, with subtitles in "Spanish, Chinese, French, Portuguese and even less widespread languages such as Croatian.". The lack of language support did not seem a major issue or concern for the cMOOC fraternity I noticed in my literature review. The courses do not appear to be linked to any particular university, nor do the instructors. For example the instructor on the single Physics course, Andy Brown, was biking around the world before creating his Physics course. Udacity do seem to have HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey sending out their compute generated emails, which is obviously a major technological bonus. Despite almost a year without logging in to Udacity I am able to resume my Introduction to Computer Science course from where I left off.
Pedagogy
For the Change, and other cMOOCs such as this current OU MOOC the methods and practice of teaching is by total immersion into a social peer supported learning bubble. The student is free to make use of the tools of their choice (e.g. I do not make use of Twitter but prefer blogging and reading other student's blogs). I scan emailed forum posts for points of interest. cMOOCs have a supporting structure but they are both the "Wild West" and the "Party where you can wander around eating nibbles and joining groups for chats". The beginner cMOOCer must have developed Internet and IT skills and must be organized (i.e. grouping bookmarks, be adept at searching blogs and forums) etc. if they are to remain motivated within the cMOOC. The pedagogy here is one of constructivism and I would also say experimentalism. The social aspect of this MOOC is very strong, leading to clusters of likeminded people who will continue to discuss and communicate at the end of the MOOC schedule.
The xMOOC is highly structured, less flexible in Internet tool use, in fact everything required is provided in the platform, and so anything added would be optional by the student (for example copying of their work into their own blog). The advantage of the xMOOC is that one can join at any time, where as the cMOOCs seem to run for a few times then close down. One feels alone and like the single independent learner in an xMOOC (unlike the feeling of being part of a big group with the cMOOC). Udacity does it's best to offer up a Blog (but this looks structured and uninviting - sort of the nerd in the corner). They organize "Meetups" and indeed there was one in Bangkok attended by 4 people. No more seem planned. The leaning is simply this: Listen, practice, listen, practice. There are elements of building on past learning and skills, where the programming problems (for the CS intro) got more tricky and made use of previous content covered. The activity problems, program code to write, required a very good understanding of the previous material if one was to be successful. As stated in the literature, the pedagogy is standard fair and quite old. Learning to learn, not required here.
General approach and philosophy
The cMOOC (The Change MOOC) has the advantage of keeping the student engaged and participating by the use of many and varied knowledge delivery systems plus of course asking the student to create digital artifacts (products) using any tool their hearts desire. This freedom of product creation tool means that there will be participants without those tool skills who will feel inferior or lack the confidence to engage and may lurk. Although lurkers have their place to. Peer pressure and "keeping up with the Jones'" may be an issue. On the other hand, this kind of MOOC and the various means of engaging with peers allows for communication at all levels (plus I think, in general these MOOCs attract a more creative and genial crowd). I believe that the MOOC founders might be a little upset that their MOOC ideas have been hijacked by what people term the "elite" universities, who garner all the media attention (Bates was certainly unimpressed with Daphne Koller's Ted Talk). However, many people will feel more at home following a cMOOC course than an xMOOC course. I think the cMOOC philosophy matches more closely to the education for everyone (rich, poor, developed, undeveloped country) ideal than the xMOOC does. Purely because of the openness in tools in cases of restricted Internet bandwidth or government controls.
The xMOOC course appeals to my innate logical, everything sorted and structured anal personality. I know where I am, literally, with a xMOOC. My progress can almost be measured down to the nano-second. The bite sized videos tend, on the CS course anyhow, to make use of the instructor drawing sketches (known to be preferred by many - aka Kharn Academy except we see pen and hand) which then morph, as if by magic, in to MC quizzes in order to test understanding. These computer graded short quizzes combined with automatically graded bigger activities is an area not seen in the cMOOC, although there is no reason I suppose why a cMOOC could not use a tool such as Yacapaca. Eventually, as the Coursera contract states, for profit xMOOCs will, in my opinion, start charging for something. Be it certificates at the end, or selling student data to employment agencies. This potential payment and the lack of media delivery flexibility may be restrictive to poorer students with low Internet bandwidth.
Opinion
I think a person needs to be far more self-motivated in order to complete a xMOOC course, compared to a cMOOC course mainly because of the lack of functionality to "see" and share problems with others (despite the 22 minute coursera stated peer answer time). To see that others are experiencing the same problems you had. The cMOOC has a community of supportive learners who are willing to help which does not seem so apparent with the xMOOC. xMOOC content comes from the so called, best universities in the world, and although this does not necessarily mean the teaching is the best in the world, the chance to be able to access it for free is an amazing opportunity. The xMOOC will be the survivor if there is a MOOC challenge, because of the simplicity and ease of starting any course and the clean interface. By including more social learning opportunities into the xMOOC people will pay for this online course eventually. I know that if I made it to the final exam of a MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale etc. course I would certainly be willing to pay $100 or more for a certificate on passing the exam. I also believe that these certificates are going to be far more relevant to employers than say a Bath Master's degree. An applicant with evidence of having recently successfully completed a few xMOOCs on their CV outweighs the applicant who did an MA ten years back, for a whole host of reasons.
References
See here for my notes and references that have gone into the above: http://davidbrettell-h817.blogspot.com/2013/04/week-4-activity-12-learner-experience.html
Week 4 - Activity 12 The learner experience in MOOCs NOTES
Week 4 - Activity 12 The learner experience in MOOCs NOTES
"This has led to some criticism that MOOCs are only suitable for more experienced learners and those who are technologically competent." My own experience tends to agree with this.
The completion rate for MOOCs is very low, as this article in The Atlantic
article in The Atlantic
Overblown-Claims-of-Failure Watch: How Not to Gauge the Success of Online Courses
Rebecca J. Rosen Jul 22 2012, 2:52 PM E
"If anything, the low rate of success is a sign of the system's efficiency." - it is easy to drop out. And this is not viewed as negatively.
Read Kop (2011), The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course .
A bit boring to start, certainly put the wife to sleep. Some good quotes and I appreciate the lurkers point of view. What I still want to know is, of the 40 to 60 active participants (activity defined by amount of posts, not internal reflection and the building up of evidence to support an idea) how many of them completed all the reading and made it to the end, compared to the lurkers? The biggest problem with this paper is it's lack of simple English. It seems to thrive on complex educational lingo and complex words and phrases when simple ones will do much better.
Read Daniel (2012), Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility62, which provides a comprehensive review of MOOCs.
Bifurcated = divided into two
cMOOCs and xMOOCs. ?????
http://reflectionsandcontemplations.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/what-is-a-mooc-what-are-the-different-types-of-mooc-xmoocs-and-cmoocs/
These organisations provide one interpretation of the MOOC model. They focus on concise, targeted video content – with short videos rather than full-length lectures to wade through – and use automated testing to check students’ understanding as they work through the content.
These MOOCS have been dubbed “xMOOCs”. Whilst they include discussion forums, and allow people to bounce ideas around and discuss learning together, the centre of the course is the instructor-guided lesson. Each student’s journey/trajectory through the course is linear and based on the absorption and understanding of fixed competencies. Learning is seen as something that can be tested and certified.
The other type of MOOC is based on connectivism. These are the cMOOCS.
The connected aspect of learning is brought to the fore in a cMOOC. It’s a chaotic experience (as @RosemarySewart put it) and is inherently personal and subjective, as participants create their meaning and build and navigate their own web of connections.
cMOOCs are not proscriptive, and participants set their own learning goals and type of engagement. They won’t necessarily walk away with a fixed and tested set of specific skills or competencies, or knowledge of a set body of content. This makes cMOOCs tricky to grade or assess or certify. This, combined with the fact that the platform is totally open, means that they probably aren’t very easy to make any money from.
So, I prefer xMOOCs but with the freedom of cMOOCs. Why, because I don't need to spend (waste) time wandering all over the Internet to gain my learning.
http://natnelson19.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/cmoocs-or-xmoocs-both-please/comment-page-1/#comment-144
xMOOCs also diverging...?
Armstrong, L. (2012). Coursera and MITx: Sustainingor disruptive?
http://www.changinghighereducation.com/2012/08/coursera-.html
accessed 2012-09-22
A bit harsh on the Cousera offering, what do you expect for free? Detailed human assessment and feedback - dream on pal. Maybe the people who take the Coursera courses aren't deeply into "working knowledge of research in pedagogy" perhaps they don't think it is all that important when compared to getting on with the free course. Armstrong comes across as an intellectual snob.
I don't see a HUGE difference between xMOOCs given here. Only a listed, somewhat biased, personal preference. The article states that MITx is better than Cousera because MIT mention the word "pedagogy" more often in their literature. Armstrong seems to hint that Coursera is the great pretender. A sort of "jumped up" "new money" learning platform.
Coursera (for profit) - provides a s/w platform for any university and course
Choose from 300+ courses in over 20 categories created by 62 Universities from 16 countries. With courses in French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish.
http://viz.coursera.org/2013-02-20-globe/
Only 1 from London and 1 from Edinburgh - So where is Oxbridge then? Nothing from Thailand.
The search engine on Coursera is very nice and fast. I think this is fantastic, wish it was available when I was a kid. I would have studied everything.
MITx - Is for MIT (changed now - see below.)
Udacity (for profit) - Same idea as Coursera
Courses have subtitles in Spanish, Chinese, French, Portuguese and even less widespread languages such as Croatian.
22 courses listed, topics tend to all be CS related. Information on where the courses come from is not clearly available. Perhaps the courses are created by freelancers not necessarily connected to any university.
EdX (non-profit) - MIT, Harvard, Berkeley (Berk - not mentioned in the About, but listed as providing courses) plus: edX’s newest consortium members include Wellesley, Georgetown, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, McGill University, University of Toronto, Australian National University, Delft University of Technology, and Rice University.
Open open-source s/w platform being developed
In theory, EdX picks and chooses which universities in wants, whereas Coursera will have anyone.
29 courses listed.
Opps forgot about Academic Earth! http://www.academicearth.org/
Surly one of the first?
Cambridge is here. 42 universities (a number from India)
A big list of "Climate change" related courses - 43. Because it's Academic "Earth".
Why is Academic Earth not mentioned as a MOOC?
Summary - Coursera has the most courses, choice and universities listed. EdX comes in second place, and says it is choosy in who it picks. Udacity doesn't seem to affiliate to any university but basically offers 22 courses on CS subjects only pretty much.
Where will the money come from? At the end of the Coursera partnership
agreement a section on Possible Company Monetization Strategies lists eight
potential business models. They are:
Pearson VUE, a subsidiary of the Pearson conglomerate, to use its worldwide network of testing centres
http://www.pearsonvue.com/
Pearson VUE delivers certification and licensure tests through the world’s largest network of test centers in 175 countries across the world.
I believe online education in conjunction with independent test centers will be the future.
"Put another way, cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication'." I disagree, I think cMOOCs are for knowledge gain and xMOOCs for problem solving and critical thinking, for the CS field.
Google Course Builder and it's own xMOOC - Power Searching
http://www.powersearchingwithgoogle.com/
Course Builder - looks interesting and something I could probably do
the London School of Economics, Oxford, Yale and Stanford thought they could make useful additional income by offering non-credit courses online. In the event they and their partners lost money before ventures like Fathom and AllLearn were ignominiously shuttered.
http://allearn.org/ - What a nightmare of a site, no wonder if failed. Looks like it has been hacked or is a joke.
This is a much better paper compared to the other one. It's clear, doesn't indulge in eduspeak and contains good and meaningful links to follow up on. No sense of pretensions and language that can be understood. Good job!
Elite institutions, of course, usually define their quality by the numbers of applicants that they exclude, not by the teaching that happens on campus after admission. My late Athabasca University colleague Dan Coldeway called this the principle of 'good little piggies in, make good bacon out'.
Learning analytics are 'the use of data and models to predict student progress and performance, and the ability to act on that information'
The best MOOCs / universities will be the ones where measured value-added of incoming and exiting students is the greatest.
For over 30 years Athabasca University has offered a Bachelor's degree with no residency requirement (i.e. students do not have to take any courses from Athabasca, the award can be made entirely on the basis of credit accumulation). Athabasca is also contemplating putting together a 'Best First Year Online' constructed entirely from open courseware (Pannekoek, 2012).
Pannekoek, F. (2012). Best First Year Online: An Open Courseware Alternative.
http://president.athabascau.ca/documents/BestFirstYear.pdf accessed 2012-09-23
OERu - OERu
http://wikieducator.org/OER_university/Home
A few words but nothing solid in place. Looks like a dead duck to me.
Bates, T (2012). What's right and what's wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs?http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/
accessed 2012-09-22
TED Talks: Daphne Koller: What we’re learning from online education
Daphne Koller, one of the two founders of Coursera, describes some of the key features of the Coursera MOOCs, and the lessons she has learned to date about teaching and learning from these courses. The video is well worth watching, just for this.
If Stanford or MIT gave credit for these courses to students from South Africa who succeeded in the exams, and then awarded them full degrees, then that might be different. But these elite universities continue to treat MOOCs as a philanthropic form of continuing education, and until these institutions are willing to award credit and degrees for this type of program, we have to believe that they think that this is a second class form of education suitable only for the unwashed masses.
I proudly stand and declare myself as one of the Unwashed and indeed Unshaved also!
Having watched the Koller Ted Talk I think Bates is being a bit biased and negative. I don't think Koller stated or believes she has created MOOCs or Online leaning.
With luck the dream of the great American educator Ernie Boyer (1990) may even
come true. In 1990, in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate,
he wrote: 'We need a climate in which colleges and universities are less
imitative, taking pride in their uniqueness. It's time to end the suffocating
practice in which colleges and universities measure themselves far too
frequently by external status rather than by values determined by their own
distinctive mission'.
Sir John Daniel Bio - http://sirjohn.ca/wordpress/?page_id=14
That was supposed to be a 1 hour activity, more like 1 day!
"This has led to some criticism that MOOCs are only suitable for more experienced learners and those who are technologically competent." My own experience tends to agree with this.
The completion rate for MOOCs is very low, as this article in The Atlantic
article in The Atlantic
Overblown-Claims-of-Failure Watch: How Not to Gauge the Success of Online Courses
Rebecca J. Rosen Jul 22 2012, 2:52 PM E
"If anything, the low rate of success is a sign of the system's efficiency." - it is easy to drop out. And this is not viewed as negatively.
Read Kop (2011), The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course
. A bit boring to start, certainly put the wife to sleep. Some good quotes and I appreciate the lurkers point of view. What I still want to know is, of the 40 to 60 active participants (activity defined by amount of posts, not internal reflection and the building up of evidence to support an idea) how many of them completed all the reading and made it to the end, compared to the lurkers? The biggest problem with this paper is it's lack of simple English. It seems to thrive on complex educational lingo and complex words and phrases when simple ones will do much better.
Read Daniel (2012), Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility62, which provides a comprehensive review of MOOCs.
Bifurcated = divided into two
cMOOCs and xMOOCs. ?????
http://reflectionsandcontemplations.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/what-is-a-mooc-what-are-the-different-types-of-mooc-xmoocs-and-cmoocs/
These organisations provide one interpretation of the MOOC model. They focus on concise, targeted video content – with short videos rather than full-length lectures to wade through – and use automated testing to check students’ understanding as they work through the content.
These MOOCS have been dubbed “xMOOCs”. Whilst they include discussion forums, and allow people to bounce ideas around and discuss learning together, the centre of the course is the instructor-guided lesson. Each student’s journey/trajectory through the course is linear and based on the absorption and understanding of fixed competencies. Learning is seen as something that can be tested and certified.
The other type of MOOC is based on connectivism. These are the cMOOCS.
The connected aspect of learning is brought to the fore in a cMOOC. It’s a chaotic experience (as @RosemarySewart put it) and is inherently personal and subjective, as participants create their meaning and build and navigate their own web of connections.
cMOOCs are not proscriptive, and participants set their own learning goals and type of engagement. They won’t necessarily walk away with a fixed and tested set of specific skills or competencies, or knowledge of a set body of content. This makes cMOOCs tricky to grade or assess or certify. This, combined with the fact that the platform is totally open, means that they probably aren’t very easy to make any money from.
So, I prefer xMOOCs but with the freedom of cMOOCs. Why, because I don't need to spend (waste) time wandering all over the Internet to gain my learning.
http://natnelson19.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/cmoocs-or-xmoocs-both-please/comment-page-1/#comment-144
xMOOCs also diverging...?
Armstrong, L. (2012). Coursera and MITx: Sustainingor disruptive?
http://www.changinghighereducation.com/2012/08/coursera-.html
accessed 2012-09-22
A bit harsh on the Cousera offering, what do you expect for free? Detailed human assessment and feedback - dream on pal. Maybe the people who take the Coursera courses aren't deeply into "working knowledge of research in pedagogy" perhaps they don't think it is all that important when compared to getting on with the free course. Armstrong comes across as an intellectual snob.
I don't see a HUGE difference between xMOOCs given here. Only a listed, somewhat biased, personal preference. The article states that MITx is better than Cousera because MIT mention the word "pedagogy" more often in their literature. Armstrong seems to hint that Coursera is the great pretender. A sort of "jumped up" "new money" learning platform.
Coursera (for profit) - provides a s/w platform for any university and course
Choose from 300+ courses in over 20 categories created by 62 Universities from 16 countries. With courses in French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish.
Only 1 from London and 1 from Edinburgh - So where is Oxbridge then? Nothing from Thailand.
The search engine on Coursera is very nice and fast. I think this is fantastic, wish it was available when I was a kid. I would have studied everything.
MITx - Is for MIT (changed now - see below.)
Udacity (for profit) - Same idea as Coursera
Courses have subtitles in Spanish, Chinese, French, Portuguese and even less widespread languages such as Croatian.
22 courses listed, topics tend to all be CS related. Information on where the courses come from is not clearly available. Perhaps the courses are created by freelancers not necessarily connected to any university.
EdX (non-profit) - MIT, Harvard, Berkeley (Berk - not mentioned in the About, but listed as providing courses) plus: edX’s newest consortium members include Wellesley, Georgetown, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, McGill University, University of Toronto, Australian National University, Delft University of Technology, and Rice University.
Open open-source s/w platform being developed
In theory, EdX picks and chooses which universities in wants, whereas Coursera will have anyone.
29 courses listed.
Opps forgot about Academic Earth! http://www.academicearth.org/
Surly one of the first?
Cambridge is here. 42 universities (a number from India)
A big list of "Climate change" related courses - 43. Because it's Academic "Earth".
Why is Academic Earth not mentioned as a MOOC?
Summary - Coursera has the most courses, choice and universities listed. EdX comes in second place, and says it is choosy in who it picks. Udacity doesn't seem to affiliate to any university but basically offers 22 courses on CS subjects only pretty much.
Where will the money come from? At the end of the Coursera partnership
agreement a section on Possible Company Monetization Strategies lists eight
potential business models. They are:
- Certification (students pay for a badge or certificate)
- Secure assessments (students pay to have their examinations invigilated (proctored))
- Employee recruitment (companies pay for access to student performance records)
- Applicant screening (employers/universities pay for access to records to screen applicants)
- Human tutoring or assignment marking (for which students pay)
- Selling the MOOC platform to enterprises to use in their own training courses
- Sponsorships (3rd party sponsors of courses)
- Tuition fees
Pearson VUE, a subsidiary of the Pearson conglomerate, to use its worldwide network of testing centres
http://www.pearsonvue.com/
Pearson VUE delivers certification and licensure tests through the world’s largest network of test centers in 175 countries across the world.
I believe online education in conjunction with independent test centers will be the future.
"Put another way, cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication'." I disagree, I think cMOOCs are for knowledge gain and xMOOCs for problem solving and critical thinking, for the CS field.
Google Course Builder and it's own xMOOC - Power Searching
http://www.powersearchingwithgoogle.com/
Course Builder - looks interesting and something I could probably do
the London School of Economics, Oxford, Yale and Stanford thought they could make useful additional income by offering non-credit courses online. In the event they and their partners lost money before ventures like Fathom and AllLearn were ignominiously shuttered.
http://allearn.org/ - What a nightmare of a site, no wonder if failed. Looks like it has been hacked or is a joke.
This is a much better paper compared to the other one. It's clear, doesn't indulge in eduspeak and contains good and meaningful links to follow up on. No sense of pretensions and language that can be understood. Good job!
Elite institutions, of course, usually define their quality by the numbers of applicants that they exclude, not by the teaching that happens on campus after admission. My late Athabasca University colleague Dan Coldeway called this the principle of 'good little piggies in, make good bacon out'.
Learning analytics are 'the use of data and models to predict student progress and performance, and the ability to act on that information'
The best MOOCs / universities will be the ones where measured value-added of incoming and exiting students is the greatest.
For over 30 years Athabasca University has offered a Bachelor's degree with no residency requirement (i.e. students do not have to take any courses from Athabasca, the award can be made entirely on the basis of credit accumulation). Athabasca is also contemplating putting together a 'Best First Year Online' constructed entirely from open courseware (Pannekoek, 2012).
Pannekoek, F. (2012). Best First Year Online: An Open Courseware Alternative.
http://president.athabascau.ca/documents/BestFirstYear.pdf accessed 2012-09-23
OERu - OERu
http://wikieducator.org/OER_university/Home
A few words but nothing solid in place. Looks like a dead duck to me.
Bates, T (2012). What's right and what's wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs?http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/
accessed 2012-09-22
TED Talks: Daphne Koller: What we’re learning from online education
Daphne Koller, one of the two founders of Coursera, describes some of the key features of the Coursera MOOCs, and the lessons she has learned to date about teaching and learning from these courses. The video is well worth watching, just for this.
If Stanford or MIT gave credit for these courses to students from South Africa who succeeded in the exams, and then awarded them full degrees, then that might be different. But these elite universities continue to treat MOOCs as a philanthropic form of continuing education, and until these institutions are willing to award credit and degrees for this type of program, we have to believe that they think that this is a second class form of education suitable only for the unwashed masses.
I proudly stand and declare myself as one of the Unwashed and indeed Unshaved also!
Having watched the Koller Ted Talk I think Bates is being a bit biased and negative. I don't think Koller stated or believes she has created MOOCs or Online leaning.
With luck the dream of the great American educator Ernie Boyer (1990) may even
come true. In 1990, in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate,
he wrote: 'We need a climate in which colleges and universities are less
imitative, taking pride in their uniqueness. It's time to end the suffocating
practice in which colleges and universities measure themselves far too
frequently by external status rather than by values determined by their own
distinctive mission'.
Sir John Daniel Bio - http://sirjohn.ca/wordpress/?page_id=14
That was supposed to be a 1 hour activity, more like 1 day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)