Jump to content

Talk:Massive open online course/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

list of MOOCs terribly outdated

No mention of the two largest MOOCs to date. The Stanford Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning classes with a combined enrollment of 260,000 students.

Above comment refers to fall/winter 2011 and forgets to mention the Databases class. Now (March 2012) there is an avalanche of MOOCs, the most prominent suppliers for technical classes being Coursera (Stanford and others), MITx and Udacity (ex-Stanford AI). The list is very pedagogy-centric and doesn't mention the number of participants. The list of MOOCs should be made a separate article, tabularized, updated and the curriculum details of single classes deleted. There should also be a distinction between tutored, time-bound classes and mere online courseware. The latter has been around for years already. It is not clear from the article whether courseware counts as a MOOC or not.--88.73.26.46 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The UK's first mooc platform - www.futurelearn.com - might deserve mention here under "Recent developments" ? (I work at the OU so am reluctant to add it myself). I'm not sure it's terribly valuable to list all of the mooc platforms and providers associated with them though, as the article does at the moment. Perhaps this could be tabulated? Sjgknight (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This all needs a re-write

Might have a go shortly. But we need to add the use of the word MOOC to include stuff like EdX, Coursera etc.

Dkernohan (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now those wouldn't fit easily into the article, as the article seems conspicuously written to confine MOOCs within the theory of connectivism. This isn't to say that I disagree with connectivism as a powerful shaper of MOOCs, but I do recognize that MOOCs are now being developed based on a more general definition of the word.
So, as MOOCs themselves spread and are adopted by diverse instructors for various purposes, the definition will inevitably broaden to extend beyond the theoretical and political roots of its originators. As with most inventions, its use is now beyond the inventors' control.--Mr. Stein (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted a significant revision of the article to (1) streamline the intro and defintion, (2) account for non-connectivist "MOOCs", (4) eliminate POV conflicts, and (3) reorganize existing content.
I believe we still need to pare down the list of MOOC examples, and cut out some of the connectivist theory passages, since that already exists on the connectivism article. --Mr. Stein (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I have introduced George Siemens' terms "cMOOC" and "xMOOC". (For Siemens' article, see: http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/) These terms distinguish between the two types, and, perhaps, when re-writing the information in the article, we can use these. Kmasters0 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we need articles on cMOOCs and xMOOCs?? Suggest discussion at WP:COMMOER. - Sara FB (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of advert and merge

As there is clearly scholarly discourse on the subject Google Scholar Search for MOOC I'm removing the advert comment. As there have been four people (me included) opposed to merging with MUVE i'm removing the merge proposal[[1] . It's does need a clean up however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecormier (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for contribution: Peer Learning/Connectivism

Anyone interested in improving the "connectivism" section on a related article on peer learning that I've been working on? It's currently pretty minimal. I know there's considerable discussion about research in e.g. Coursera that talks about how people help each other learn in the course: but I don't know specifics. Arided (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do people say this? Has anyone heard it pronounced, and more than once, or by somebody with standing? 99.102.246.210 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dave Cormier, who coined the term, pronounces it to rhyme with "spook." [2] 150.243.14.39 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed linkfarm for article research

I agree this linkfarm of "Examples" should have been removed, but I'm pasting it here because I want to survey these sites to do research for the article:

Websites of MOOCs (Note April 2013 spam warning on academicroom)

  1. ^ "How This Course Works ~ PLENK 2010". Connect.downes.ca. Retrieved 2012-09-18.
  2. ^ Siemens, George, MOOC or Mega-Connectivism Course, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge blog, 28 July 2008.
  3. ^ Fini, Antonio, "The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools", International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 10, No 5 (2009).
  4. ^ Couros, Alec, "Developing Personal Learning Networks for Open and Social Learning", Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, edited by George Veletsianos, Athabasca University Press (2010)
  5. ^ Tamar Lewin (August 21, 2012). "Free Online Course Will Rely on Multiple Sites". The New York Times. Retrieved August 21, 2012.

Paum89 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Online learning

There is already an article on online learning. This article needs to be updated and included with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.124.13 (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not credit?

What is keeping these distance education courses from being offered for degree credit? Security relative to cheating? Dilution of the value of degrees when many more can be offered? If the former, who is working on security solutions (e.g., simultaneous webcam and screen-cast recording with computer vision to have the student answer by head nodding or hand signals to prove they are at the station)? Is anyone offering MOOCs with in-person high stakes exams at testing facilities as in how the GRE is administered worldwide? Paum89 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the contents of the article, but how to improve it...Sjgknight (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Section "criticism" to be renamed/cast as "business model"

While I agree that there are valid criticisms regarding mooc business models, a quote regarding conversion rates is not a criticism by itself. There should be a section on criticisms but it will need expanding/rewriting. Equally, a section on business models might be quite interesting given the various positions being adopted. There could also be a 'criticisms' section on that (free education, perpetuating divides, whatever else).

I propose to 1) create a section 'business models' (including the conversion quote), 2) delete what is currently the 'criticisms' section. If I have time I'd like to put some bullet point issues under that, but if anyone else can do it that would be great. Sjgknight (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole article looks like it is flailing about. We should emphasize straight facts, come up with an actual definition, remove opinion, buzzwords, etc. So far it just doesn't look like we know what we're talking about. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok I agree, I'm going to have a first stab at tightening it up, any help would be appreciated. I think the first thing is to tighten the structure including the proposals I make above. Sjgknight (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this section - I think it should be reinserted under a "business models" with a criticism mentioned under "challenges and criticisms". That whole section also needs citations, either for each individual point made or a general citation containing all of those points. The text I removed is "Randy Best, the chairman of Academic Partnerships (a company that helps public universities move their courses online) states, “We started it, frankly, as a campaign to grow enrollment. But 72 to 84 percent of those who did the first (FREE) course came back and paid to take the second course.” The interim Provost of the University of Cincinnati states, “We’re confident that once MOOC students begin interacting with our expert faculty and their fellow classmates, they’ll begin forming a lasting educational relationship with the university.”[1]" Sjgknight (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Forms - WEOC

I'm removing the section (text below) Alternative Forms - WEOC. Googling Wide Enrollment Online Course only brings up this Wikipedia page. It isn't clear to me how the concept would differ from (the widespread use of) distance education programs in general so the specific mention to the university of phoenix strikes me as dubious.

"An alternative form to the MOOC has appeared called Wide Enrollment Online Course (WEOC). Where as a MOOC is open enrollment, WEOCs are designed in the same way but require paid enrollment and/or acceptance at a University, College, or employment at an organization. WEOCs are proprietary and often use proprietary (non-open source) software built upon commercial Learning Management Systems (LMS). While they are more tightly controlled, WEOCs may or may not be more academically rigid or of higher quality as it depends on the Subject Matter Expert (SME) and Learning Designer who created the WEOC. The most famous example of a WEOC is in use at University of Phoenix where students follow a highly structured learning experience with detailed learning objectives and course outcomes. Many additional examples exist in academia but are less well known.[2]

A WEOC differs significantly from the less structured youtube lectures, iTunes University, or Blackboard/Moodle courses that are becoming common place in higher education. These venues offer the learner anything from a collection of PDFs or random video lectures to near perfect replicas of in-person classes a school might offer. In contrast, a WEOC (and often MOOCs) will offer the learner a structured learning experience vetted by learning designers & technologists which follow a set of objectives and outcomes consistent with academic accreditation requirements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjgknight (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that this looks like an attempt to change the MOOC concept and co-opt it for commercial purposes. At the same time business models do need to be addressed - if only to say that nobody has really come up with a business model - except perhaps a "pure charity" model such as Khan Academy. (BTW is Khan Academy considered a MOOC provider? If not, why not?)
At the same time, I think everybody must admit that MOOCs for universities under the current "non-business model" is likely unsustainable. Giving away your product doesn't work for 99% of all enterprises, giving your product away to as many people as possible is also unlikely to work for universities. I have no idea what the successful business model will be, but the situation should be addressed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes business models need to be addressed in the article (I'll have a look for some good sources at some point), but WEOC just isn't a widely used term so I don't know where it's come from. Re Khan Academy...I think it sometimes is, but they aren't really courses so much as units? Maybe a moo? Sjgknight (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


External video

See the "External video" box with Dave Cormier - this is something of an experiment, any feedback appreciated. I might do the same thing with a Khan Academy video, if I can figure out whether they are a MOOC and where they fit in the article. BTW, I am working with the GLAM project Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory, where Smarthistory is a part of Khan Academy. Don't worry, I am not employed by KA or Smarthistory. Anybody who is interested in this is welcome to join in on the GLAM project. I sort of see this project as being a pioneer in how Wikipedia might use open-access MOOC-type material. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a video on the page (it's very topic-appropriate!) I saw a great one of those ones with the drawing hands a while ago...possibly on something Stephen Downes was doing, but I can't find it now. I'm not sure I'd put a video in from a specific provider though (Khan Academy), I also wonder if linking to, e.g. one of the TED talks or various other popular general discussions on moocs might be worthwhile? Sjgknight (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This section needs a big tidy up, there are a lot of valuable general discussions (and videos) out there, but at the moment this section has a lot of links which should properly be referred to in-text and cited as such, and some links which are to mooc providers, etc. - for which there should probably be a section and/or table. This would be a relatively easy thing to tackle if anyone has time. Sjgknight (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Various meanings of MOOC, and a possible (re)structure for the article

I see that the various meanings of MOOC have already come under discussion. Hopefully my comments as someone newly coming in will be helpful. The main polarity that I see is between MOOCs as being essentially collaborative, and MOOCs being mainly a course offered to a large number of people, probably for free, but essentially with one teacher and a lot of students (the students interact with each-other, but this is the same as with a non-MOOC).

If MOOCs themselves can be divided this way, then maybe the article could be structured with these 2 main divisions - though I see that there is a section about this polarity ('Instructional design approaches').

One confusion I find with the present article is that statements are made as if they apply to all MOOCs, while I think they probably only apply to some.

http://moocguide.wikispaces.com seems to be based on the collaborative model.

http://www.mooc-list.com/ I think takes MOOC = Free Online Courses

http://www.class-central.com/ says "...free online course aka MOOC..."

For example, the present article lists "5 key challenges for moocs", taken directly from MoocGuide, without anything to say that they probably only apply to some models. (Also, this seems to be a misquote, as at the moment MoocGuide says "possible" not "key" - I will edit this.)

The article does say: "Other features associated with early MOOCs, such as open licensing of content, open structure and learning goals, community-centeredness, etc. may not be present in all MOOC projects." But I think that this needs to be more integrated in the article. I am also wondering about the use of the word "early", which seems to imply that MOOCs used to have certain features, that recent ones do not - is this true?

At the moment I am not planning to do a major re-structure of the article as I do not know enough about the subject, but I hope my comments have been helpful.FrankSier (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks FrankSier the connectivist/not distinction is made, but you're right could perhaps be played on more. I'm of the view that some of these issues would be addressed by having a much clearer discussion of what the theory of moocs is, and then a table with some things claiming to offer moocs and their characteristics in it. You're right, a number of organisations are offering 'moocs' of different sorts but which don't appear to meet at least one of the 'mooc' letters...this also relates to a criticism of moocs, that the name is a) rebranding b) business oriented(?), and c) not well defined, so the confusion in the article partly relates to a confusion in the literature, but it could still be greatly improved Sjgknight (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring, or maybe just rewriting

I finally got something on business models and still have to put the "disruptive" part in. And I put in the best known TED videos on the topic.

I've rewritten down to "instructional design", and I'm thinking a lot of those lists in the last half will go.

In short, the article is starting to hang together, rather than be a collection of random views on the topic.

That comes at a cost - likely I've removed too much. Will others try to add back the best of what I removed, while still keeping some order to the article?

For one thing, the connectivist stuff might be getting trampled on - sort of like the real world. There's just a lot more sources on the Big 3 stuff. Those who know connectivism better than I do (90% of the world), need to find the material and work it in to the flow of the article.

So please add more content and rewrite my revisions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

MOOC - Massive Open Online Course logo

This logo has been included in the article and it looks very nice, but it seems that it is meant for all MOOCs worldwide, so it was essentially just invented for this article (or the one on the French Wikipedia). Not sure this is appropriate - original creative artwork sort of seems like WP:OR. I'd like to hear what others think, and of course if it catches on then of course we have to use it. But if we are the only ones using it .... Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this seems an odd inclusion, I've removed it for now (it wasn't displaying properly anyway), we can always reinstate it if there's good cause to do so... Aside from the issues you raise Smallbones it's not clear to me what the logo would apply to - are moocs enough of a "thing to have a generic logo which can be appropriately applied (and not applied), etc.? Adding the logo perhaps adds a level of legitimacy/certainty (?) which the rest of the article mght not display (e.g. is it just 'online education', etc.) If we're the only ones using the logo there's also risk we're seen as defining how it should be used - and I certainly think that would be inappropriate Sjgknight (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The image has been re-added by User:Andybulle who also created the image. I'm going to delete it again but have posted on their commons talk page to suggest they respond here - perhaps it should be kept, but I'm not sure how the above are addressed. Copying some relevant guidelines here:

Sjgknight (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Opportunities/Challenges - a suggested table

I started drafting this offline, I'm a bit swamped/want to share at this point. It needs a) tightening and b) citation, but what do people think to replacing some of the text with something like this?

Opportunity

Challenge

Moocs are new

Challenge current model and innovate

They’re not tried and tested but may lead to lowest common denominator

Low cost delivery

Widen access to educational opportunities to poorer, and different demographics

New digital divides may emerge, particularly between those who can afford premium or not, and those who can afford traditional (campus-based) degrees and not

Quality of provision

Moocs allow A/B testing, and other innovative design solutions at large scale. Most university pedagogy is pretty poor currently, moocs allow large scale innovation.

Pedagogy at large scale is reduced. Many moocs based on instructivist pedagogy (e.g. watching videos). Shallow interactions between participants.

Course Credit

Moocs allow students to construct their own degree from credit

Lose value of traditional degree; Moocs often lack the ‘c’ – they are not actually courses; Quality of education concerns

‘Premium Services’

Opportunity to earn real course credit from moocs

Campuses wither and die, creates class divide, two tier system, marketisation and fragmentation of higher education (deprofessionalisation?)

Traditional campuses

Opportunity to reduce cost of traditional campus, and re-focus them. New business models of lifelong learning may create need for local specialist centres which universities may contribute to. Disruptive value of moocs is good thing.

Risk of new divides (See above), risk of loss of expertise, campuses provide more experience than just the degree, moocs’ focus on ‘value’ is at cost of true value of campus/university.

Sjgknight (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sjgknight, would you consider discussing this on theWP:COMMOER project talk page? May find interest. Please join our team if you're interested (and haven't already). - Sara FB (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

under Precursors

Im not sure if someone edited out the predicate but the following is not a full sentence.

"The short lecture format used by many MOOCs developed from "Khan Academy’s free archive of snappy instructional videos."" 70.113.195.121 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The verb is "developed". Feel free to write in a form that you can understand! Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Delivery platforms [note:partialy left on original talk page when archived due to some continued relevance Sjgknight (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC))

I've put in a section on delivery platforms with one whole citation, even though I know nothing about delivery platforms. My belief is that this will be very important, that the open source platform MAY come to dominate, and that adherents of different platforms love to brag about their favorites on Wikipedia. Go for it!

As far as other material, I'm still looking for stuff on

  • Who takes the courses and who succeeds
  • How online testing will work
  • Data gathering and adaptations based on this data (evolving courses)
  • The apparent contradiction between serving previously successful students and claims of offering to educate the whole world.
  • The relation of connectivism to non-synchronous courses
  • Blended learning and how university customers will use the material

These are ideas that were brought up by sources that concentrated on other things (or perhaps that I just imagined) but I'd likely include if I could find good sources. Please leave any links below!

Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


Looks good - in fact I think the page generally is looking much better than it was not so long ago User:Smallbones :-). Re: other material, I agree those things need more detail/adding, but I wonder about structuring (e.g. would something based on the table above be a good 'introduction' with more detail on each underneath?). Sorry I'm just dumping links here but I'm a bit snowed - these might be useful

I'll try and add others as I come across them. Educause is a pretty good source http://www.educause.edu/search/apachesolr_search/mooc?filters=sm_cck_field_super_facet%3A%22EDUCAUSE%20Library%20Items%22 Might need to archive some of the discussion on this page soon - it's getting a bit harder to follow! Sjgknight (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that an educause blog ref was reverted. I thought it was ok myself and we need to get more people involved in writing this. I might put it back in but have no intention of edit-warring on it.
Similarly, I ran into http://degreeoffreedom.org and some fairly good testing stuff at http://degreeoffreedom.org/mooc-testing-final-thoughts/ It's an interesting website/blog done by a single writer who's obviously a professional in the general area. It will be interesting to follow, but looks to be borderline RS in Wikipedia terms. As the best testing stuff I've found, I may use it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Not been getting emails on edits, odd. Anyway, Educause does reports so maybe those are safer bets but given many of the people working in this area deliberately choose not to go via traditional media sources is an issue... I can't see the thing that was taken out, what was it? Sjgknight (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a pretty straight forward review of terms of service vs. copyright and general openness. It doesn't add a great deal, but does add. The only real problems are if it goes out of date, and the general question of adding blogish material. I think I'll add some of the blogish stuff, simply because that's where some of the best material is coming from, from apparently some of the most informed people, but only in sections where there is definitely a reliable source as well. We'll have to be very careful with this - everybody should feel free to remove this material, and also not push particular POVs with it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the blog reference, my primary concern as I indicated is that it doesn't verify the information. In the new position it's better, but what exactly is it verifying? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Ronz it's supporting the claim "Features associated with early MOOCs, such as open licensing of content, open structure and learning goals, and connectivism may not be present in all MOOC projects.[9][10]"...the article is about the licensing conditions of moocs, how 'open' they are, whether they are OER, whether they can be disaggregated (as OER and more connectivist approaches) - it is definitely relevant as far as I'm concerned - perhaps you could explain why you think it isn't? Certainly if someone (you?) wanted to edit the text around it that might be sensible. Sjgknight (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What specifically in the reference verifies the information in this article? --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The specific paragraph from the source is:
"The language on the access and use of the materials on these sites varies somewhat on level of restrictiveness. edX seems to make an attempt at openness by saying that its goal is to “create a vibrant ecosystem of contributors” by using “open license terms.” However it does not specify what these are or where one can find them. It is clear that each MOOC owns the content and carefully licenses to the user the terms of access and use of it."
which supports our article's "Features associated with early MOOCs, such as open licensing of content ... may not be present in all MOOC projects." The source is quite specific and detailed, but perhaps gets too bogged down. It does cite An EDUCAUSE Executive Briefing which is closer to the normal definition of an RS, but only has a paragraph (under terms and conditions), ending "Some commercial MOOC platforms have highly proprietary terms and conditions that claim ownership of course content and prohibit sharing or remixing of material. Not all MOOCs should be assumed to be “open.” " IMHO it's a coin flip which to include, or even to include it at all, because it only adds to a source that says the same thing in a more general way. I just don't want to discourage anybody from editing here - certainly not Ronz. All contributions that add to the article should be welcome (at least until we get a much better article). Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems like it's WP:SYN. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the author doesn't make any distinction between early MOOCs and others, but rather just looks at individuals. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Ronz this is why I asked which bit you were concerned about - your concern is slightly different to the issue User:Smallbones is addressing. The source supports the claim that - contrary to the definitional 'mooc' as 'open' - many current moocs are not open. Personally I don't think it needs to make a direct comparison between 'old' and 'new' moocs in the article to support the claim, although it might perhaps be best phrased as a comparison between the definitional mooc, and those most widely known now rather than between early moocs and later ones. In any case I'm inclined to think the source is a good summary of some issues, so should stay (although again, the text around it could perhaps use some editing) Sjgknight (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
With regard to WP:SYN that might be fair enough with it's current phrasing. I've just had a stab at changing it to avoid that specific issue - not sure it's quite right though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjgknight (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Reorganize?

I came here a couple of months ago to find out what a MOOC was, and I think I can say that I have a pretty good idea now. The article of course needed a lot of work and was only a starting point - but the major questions I've had, now have some material about them in the article. It's probably time to completely re-arrange the text and put some sort of narrative or plot line to it, as well as cut out unneeded parts. Any suggestions for an outline? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on this article Smallbones. I've just had a stab at moving some bits around under their appropriate headings, and vastly reducing the section before the first heading appears. What do you think? What do you think of the table above? It might be possible to tabulate a reasonable amount of the page, e.g. Technology, Provider, Connectivist/not, etc. At what point can we remove the 'essay' tag? Sjgknight (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2
  1. ^ Tamar Lewin. Public Universities to Offer Free Online Classes for Credit. January 23, 2013
  2. ^ Educating Thousands of Pilots at Northwest Airlines, London Aero Technology Forum (2007), Presenter Capt Darren Smith
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massive_open_online_course/Archive_1&oldid=1044282921"