[James Kerr]

David,

The reality is that currently universities are tripping over themselves and each other to develop MOOC content without solid evidence of long-term benefit to their institution, no matter what the costs up front or ongoing.  I’m suggesting that rather than design and develop courses separately for MOOCs and credit delivery, if they are using the same delivery model (online coursework) there is potential for some savings in aggregating the design and development process, inclusion of OER when available and applicable, and streamlining the whole process.  The primary enhancement is in the design process and methods; I didn’t explore the enhancements of OER inclusion much in the post.

I’m not questioning the value of MOOCs or what happens to enrollments if non-credit options are available.  Right now, the model is “if you want an accredited degree you pay for the credits” and no one is sure where open learning is headed.  There are some colorful ideas and theories, including my own, but it is a big unknown territory that HE is charging into.

[James Kerr]

Best to view in Google Docs-the editor stripped all the table formatting when it posted. – Jim

[James Kerr]

Similar situations are occurring here in the U.S. as well-tuition and education costs are rising, aid and resources are diminishing, graduates carry crippling student loan debt, yet universities are offering “free” resources left and right.  These things don’t happen in a vacuum; the costs are spread out over many different initiatives, and some have grant funding, but are the “free” resources ultimately costing enrolled students more tuition?  I suspect yes.

[James Kerr]

Tom,

I don’t think I fully agree with the MOOR concept.  If materials aren’t organized into a course structure, then they are already resources;  the structure and organization are what changes it from simply a resource into a course.  The notion of progressing through the resources according to a predetermined path (syllabus) defines the course.

I gather open resources and use them in my courses.  My courses are undergraduate courses taken for credit, and not an open course.  Most of my 100 or 1000-level courses are taken because of requirements for a degree program, not because the students have such a burning desire to learn introductory computer science.  But my courses remain courses, despite the enrollees’ intentions when they sign up.

Granted, I do understand considering the rationale and participation levels of most MOOC participants, but the fact remains that the structure created is a course and not only a collection of resources.  If it were only a collection of resources without any progression or direction from an instructor, it would be more of a library, perhaps a TOOL (Technology-enabled Open Online Library)?

Jim

[James Kerr]

P.S. No offense meant to all my degreed colleagues.  Please take none.  Observational and anecdotal musings only.

[James Kerr]

Sancha,

In the past, employers who saw college degrees were relatively certain that person was well-educated and an expert in their area.  Currently, it seems as though even though individuals may have degrees, employers put more emphasis and resources into making you “prove it”.  It’s not that far of a leap to see a time when employers do more rigorous assessments of knowledge, skills, and abilities themselves, and open learners will have the opportunity to display their certificates and prove their mettle right alongside the degreed folks.  When that happens, what is the value of a degree?  With the push to have everyone degreed, it’s not a valuable indicator any longer.  Associate degrees are devalued.  Bachelor’s degrees are devalued.  We are reaching the point where Master’s and even some Doctorates are a “dime a dozen” and devalued.  I don’t think it is so much a question of what will happen when credentialing and open education certificates are embraced by employers, but what will happen when degrees are valueless?

Jim

[James Kerr]

Dr. Keith Devlin from Stanford recently wrote about the “Death of the MOOC; Long Live the MOOR”. (http://mooctalk.org/2013/06/03/the-mooc-will-soon-die-long-live-the-moor/) In the piece he states that a better name for MOOCs would be MOOR (Massively Open Online Resource), based on the notion that most people who enroll in MOOCs do so viewing it as a resource, not a course, and only a minority of enrollees have the intention of completing the course.

Whether it is a directed and centralized xMOOC or a decentralized constructivist cMOOC, it does hold that completion and active participation rates are low, and all but the most active participants come and go at their convenience or leisure; like they are accessing a resource.

[James Kerr]

In another MOOC I participated in, the first week’s “assignment” was a solo task.  The second week’s assignment was a small group project, where the groups were assembled algorithmically.  This did not seem to work very well, as the pool of potential participants in a MOOC represents a spectrum of activity levels.  It really was the luck of the draw, to see if one was partnered with some active participants.  The following week, we were to form into small groups based on interests and project ideas.  Self-identifying groups came together much more easily, as the active MOOCers were already engaged and looking for groups to form.

[James Kerr]

Self-review / self-assessment:  can illustrate a learners confidence level in their work or abilities.  Can help peers identify areas around the topic, adjacent to, not tangential, that might be beneficial to the peer learner.

[James Kerr]

I can’t stress enough how important Induction Weeks are for hammering out initial challenges with learners/participants.  This is the “dry run”, the opportunity to get peer help or tutor assistance with the technology, tools, and organization of the course/event/MOOC.

[James Kerr]

Many parts of the US are also caught up in “rote” teaching practices, where competency exams and “common core” achievements are the measuring bar to which students are taught.  The luxuries and benefits of peer instruction are missing at lower levels, and most certainly in all but the affluent areas.  Peer instruction is widely used in graduate programs, and somewhat in undergraduate education.

[James Kerr]

There was a lively bit of e-mail traffic when ocTEL first started, through the JISC mailing list.  At first I wasn’t sure how well a mailing list would lend itself to MOOC use, but I also knew there were other avenues, and in MOOCs, especially a cMOOC like ocTEL, participants will find and use their comfort zones.

In another MOOC I participated in, the main communication channels were Twitter and diigo.  There were forums available, but they were not used by many participants at all, and, lacking a critical mass to generate thoughtful discussions, they remained dormant.

[James Kerr]

I have found that for some topics, and in fact, different groups of learners, some respond much more positively to tutoring or support sessions online using synchronous chat and/or whiteboard tools.  The environment of brainstorming, peer response, and “instantaneous” communication seemed to be much more helpful than asynchronous discussion boards.

However, there are topics and learners for whom the discussion boards are a better fit.  Especially when the content requires more time to digest and develop, as many of my grad school classes have required.

[James Kerr]

How often do “interactive” webinars or synchronous classes become a lecture-delivery tool?  It seems to be a common occurrence, when allowing participant use of webcams and video takes too much class time to figure out, to simply disable it for participants.  Next to follow is audio and microphones.  Rather than fix the trouble, it is simply cut out.  Now, if anyone has a comment or question, they are directed to type it in the chat box. While this may meet the definition of interactive in the simplest sense, it by no means leads to a rich or satisfying experience.  Too often the rich features of the tools are abandoned because it is a hassle to configure, learn, or use them.

[James Kerr]

I think we can encourage interaction with feedback but it is only mature, responsible learners (not age-dependent!) who get the most from feedback.

[Author]

Posts